Vertov asks an interesting question of "Whose vision is it?" Is it the computer's or the person's vision or message that is represented and being translated to the people? It is interesting to see that technology, although allowing for faster, more efficient communication and interaction among people around the world, is in some ways beginning to mask the human identity in that face to face interaction is dwindling since everything one could need is already so accessible online or through some other form of technology. Yet it makes life for us easier in that it breaks up complex tasks into simple algorithms and performs them nearly perfectly. There are even shortcuts that allow for effects to happen faster or more efficient.
All in all, when a work is presented to an audience using digital based media and mediums, is it the person or the machine that can take credit for the work? This article triggered more and more ideas on the validity of artwork especially with the idea that people can copy artworks, duplicate, distribute and use them as their own work with the help of a computer but this takes away from the effort of the actual artist. And if technology allows for the replication of works, does the original artwork begin to lose its meaning after it has been copied so many times? And who exactly is progressing? Man or machine?
