Haven't read that essay, but now I'm going to go look for it; was just discussing this topic with a friend...how digital art isn't 'real' in the sense that a painting, or a photograph is 'real', as the artist inputs into a machine, which translates it into code, then dissolves it into smaller particles, where certainly there's some sort of degradation, even if it's not noticeable to the eye, then it has to reach its destination, perhaps sit a while and degrade some more, and then once again get translated, perhaps with the same translator, but perhaps...not. It's not just monitor calibration, it's software, hardware...

who knows, if what you put out there is being seen not only as it was in your head, but as it went out the door on your monitor?

And you know...that's sort of a hideous thought at first, until you start wondering about the various miniscule parts of the universe your art is banging into, as it goes wandering around the globe and through the ether...

But maybe, that isnt' what the essay's about at all...

Perhaps I should go read it before I start blahblahblah-ing...

--
"Ain't no normal life, Wyatt, there's just life. Go on...live it."
--Tombstone