Reference no: EM133280709

Case: "Digitally created objects can look perfectly real indeed, excessively so. They are hyper-literal because every aspect of their appearance -- their weight, their texture, the way they reflect light -- is programmed, predetermined, leaving nothing to chance. They lack that element of accident, of peculiarity, that has always given screen objects their visual and mythic substance -- Kane's snowstorm, Chico Marx's hat, the tree in Tarkovsky's The Sacrifice. We used to be able to get sentimental about such things because their happenstance quality left room for sentiment; but digital objects are so crammed with precision that there's no room for us to project our feelings into. That's why the digital image, however spectacular, often strikes us as strangely affectless; however much we accept the truth that cinema is an art of illusion, we often feel cheated if we sense that a real presence has not passed in front of the camera." -- Jonathan Romney, 'Artform of the Century - Terminated?' The Guardian, 21 Dec 1996.

What does Romney mean by this statement? To what extent do you agree or disagree with him, and why?