[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

You don't need to restrict that sort of statement to 'modern' (that term seem oxymoronic today) painters either - the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, Van Gogh, the aforementioned Carvaggio [etc] - all fail on the computer screen.

For years I thought I disliked Warhol until I saw his stuff in situ in a gallery. I still have massive qualms about him, but it makes legions more sense in its 'proper context' than it does reproduced in a book or on a screen.

of course, but fuck if i'm going to list here all the things that suffer from reduction-- some things suffer more than others and pollock and rothko suffer among the most. the sistine chapel, well, it's a space-- when the internet is HD holographic, maybe we'll see it better.

other things however tend to survive printing or photography relatively unscathed. there is this little painting by pietr de hooch that i love for its treatment of the light as it travels through a house, and while the interweb photos are not the same as the original, the colors are garish and vary wildly from photo to photo, they sufficiently trigger a response for me .

and since you mention caravaggio, that posted caravaggio looks amazing to me in spite of the quality loss. something about the faces and gestures that manages to survive electronic transmission.

kinda like steppenwolf and the radio (since someone quoted hesse above). yes, the little people can still be happy from listening to it.

we could go on and on about this, even discuss benjamin's concept of "aura", but i thought the object of posting here was to insult KIS so he'd fuck off?

anyway, speaking of fucking off, i should go get breakfast, it's almost noon. but nice talking with you.