Glad you found some value in the link, Jonathan.
I share your concerns about the future conservation of images. That said, I have a suspicion that it's a concern shared only by an older generation with trace memories of framed pictures on sideboards, bedside tables etc. and that current youth, with its shortened attention span, will care as little for the past as it seems to do for the present. Of course there are exceptions, but by definition, they are not enough in number to change the direction of travel of society.
Personally, changes in technology have already impacted my little world. A few months ago I had to throw out a stack of video recordings I'd made because our old machine has given up the ghost; I'd have thrown it out too, but the other half of it still plays DVDs... I have what was an expensive two-cassette player/recorder that I think still works, but as I can no longer go to the local tv shop and buy new cassettes, it has assumed the historical value of my remaining film camera and the Kodachrome awaiting collectable status as it sleeps in the freezer.
Regarding motion: I see his point about clothes being designed to be seen in motion, though I am not fully convinced any such ideas are really particularly strongly felt when it comes to the buying of clobber. People, given the instore opportunity of tying stuff on, look at themselves in a mirror, face on and then from the side, and if the bum doesn't look too big, then that garment is a possibility. Of course, some brillant creation will look amazing when a great model does her twirls and swirls, but how many people ever live in their clothes in such ways? I can't help thinking that a part of the thing is that Nick Knight just wants it to be the way he says it should be, that the more complex the production the better for his bottom line.
Whatever the reasoning behind it, he can't be denied his ability to produce remarkable visual experiences!
Rob
