Is size an ontological question?

As photographic technology evolves, so such questions are being asked. See Julia Halperin’s review of the William Eggleston case over at ArtInfo. She asks: Are the digital works different from the original prints? In a statement, Christie’s called the digitals “a completely new addition” to Eggleston’s oeuvre; the house’s photography specialist told PDN they were marketed as works of contemporary art designed to appeal to contemporary art collectors, not photography traditionalists.

2 comments ↓

#1 Hamish on 04.20.12 at 9:06 am

This post is not entirely what the title led me to expect.

#2 Rob on 09.13.12 at 6:28 pm

The concept or qualification of a digital image is at best a complex and much argued point. In a work that is to be deemed an artwork the original artist should have done the digitisation and or manipulation, or at least directed it to be done. In the case of “someone” copying or digitally altering a work not their own, this is understandable but the result is at best a copy or facsimile, not an original. And for those who use stock photos or other peoples photographs in fine artwork, they are a joke.

Leave a Comment