Well, I once took an art course from a very talented painter. This guy did a series of pencil drawings that totally stunned us. He created by hand an artificial television screen on paper. Then using a magnifying glass, filled in each rbg dot on that screen to produce a final image. The effect was like looking at a TV screen, but it was a drawing. Each one took him months to create. They sure were something to see and I can't imagine his patience in creating these works. I felt there was a lot of value in his creation. The time involved to create such a work and the subject matter were brilliant. It was hand crafted by a human being. Now suppose some guy takes a digital photo, opens it into photoshop, applies a distortion filter and makes the image look like something that would appear as a tv set. Then he applies a TV filter, and voila, he has an image exactly like my art professor. He prints it out on an iris jet printer. The whole process from image capture to print takes him 1-2 days. Now lets say both images are put in a gallery. 1 is titled hand drawn sketch and the other is titled digital image, iris jet print. Which would you say has more value as a work of art? These are the questions I like to probe. I fear that the digital revolution is removing the human condition from artistic craft and creation. The iris jet may be sharper and more vibrant and have great subject matter, but is it valuable to mankind as a human achievement? Is the human condition not a major step in the making of art? Are we trading our human condition for convenience?