That one is best of all! I admit that I have yet to fully appreciate computer-generated or computer-enhanced art (compared to non-digital, old-fashioned media). To me, there is something particularly special about art created directly by a person: one can see the pencil lines or brush strokes that they put there with their own hands, such that one can see the pressure applied, or the amount of paint used, or any of the many tiny details that are not as readily discernible nor as vivid in a digital image.
I also feel the same way about hand-written things: gazing upon an original manuscript, be it for a book, a letter, a musical score, etc., can be an exhilarating experience because it gives one a tiny but direct connection to the person who wrote it. Whereas, when one looks at a printed page, the personal human element is removed, and the connection to the person who wrote it is somewhat lost. As a result, there is a sterility to it. And, it is that sterility that I also feel from digital art.
I wonder: will museums and historical libraries, in a century or two, have display cases full of word documents and pdfs of the "original" copies of great books, musical scores and letters by famous and brilliant writers and composers who "wrote" everything digitally?
Perhaps it is not a fair comparison. Visual art lies in what we actually see with our eyes -- that is its entire essence, whereas the art of music really only comes to life when it is heard, and the art of words lies in their meaning (or even in how they sound, when spoken or simply "heard" in one's head). And so, while gazing upon a hand-written manuscript of words or musical notation may provide a certain enjoyable and meaningful experience, the visual aspect of it is, in some respects, quite distinct from the art itself, or perhaps somewhat non-essential to it. I mean, music would be as beautiful to hear, regardless of whether the score was scrawled in pen or printed/typeset, and a book or poem would be as meaningful even if one only reads it online. And, for the vast majority of the music a person hears, or the books, poems, etc., that a person reads, even if an original hand-written version exists, very few will ever actually see it, and so it is a rare pleasure, even if it can be a sometimes profound one.
Then again, one can also say that about an awful lot of visual art: how many people will see the originals, compared to how many will see prints and/or digital copies? While seeing the original may provide an additional element to one's experience, how essential is it? Is it more essential than seeing an original written manuscript, or about the same? I suppose what it adds to the experience may differ depending on the individual: some people may appreciate, enjoy, or otherwise be moved by an original vastly more than other people, and why it affects them that way may be different for each person.
If one wishes to own a piece of art (be it visual art or word/music), then, as you (Geoffrey) said, I certainly believe that an original would be more highly valued, for whatever reason a person may have (depending on what they value and why). I wonder if writers and composers think of that, today, if they do not hand-write? If they and their work becomes famous, will somebody in the future want to own their sterile "original" printed novel, poem, or score, if it is indiscernible from any subsequent copy? But then, could one say the same about digital visual art (if the art is 100% digital) -- would an "original" hold any value (or any meaning?) if it is identical to all of its copies? Perhaps a hand-written signature (which one sometimes sees on limited prints) might slightly increase the value, but I don't think it is the same as having an entire work done by hand.
Oh my, I've gone off on a bit of a tangent here, having a little discussion all by myself! Perhaps I will get back on topic before I write a book. All I really meant to say is that I have a tendency to prefer things of an old-fashioned nature, but, of course, not all things -- I do like the internet! (Speaking of the internet, I also wonder about what we write online: does it have value and meaning, and to whom? Will these posts on the Leonard Cohen Forum still exist in 100 years, and if so, will people read them and wonder who we were? Geoffrey's pictures may immortalise him, whereas words by an anonymous person (such as me) may be seen as mere curiosities. I know for certain that the words by solongleonard will be seen as curiosities (as will he!).). I've done it again --rambling on, and it's getting late in this part of the world.
But, before I go, there's one more thing I want to write in response to Geoffrey: as for your pictures of Leonard, I cannot think of a nicer way to express one's feelings for someone -- be it respect, appreciation, admiration, love, gratitude, whatever it may be -- than to create art inspired by them.
