When reflecting on the gradual implementation of increasingly advanced technologies in art, I am drawn to the question, "what defines fine art?" The ability to reproduce art brought about a change in the way art is viewed and what boundaries, if any, define great art. In addition, the context of the image may greatly affect its worth. With the democratization of information and images through technology, more people have access to art than ever before. If you consider technology as meeting the needs and wants of the public, and I feel that the reproduction of images (through technology) is meeting a demand and spreading images across the globe.
The reproduction of a photograph taken from the filmstrip by a photographer would have great value compared to a poster of a famous painting. Some people have feel that reproductions lack the semblance of handcrafted originals, and many artists have latched on to and created pieces surrounding this concept. One in particular that I enjoy is artist Michael Mandiberg's twin Websites (2001). Both sites offered high-resolution, downloadable, printable Mandiberg 'originals'. The images for the first site were actually by Walker Evans, while the second site offered Evans' images as photographed by artist Sherrie Levine. The Websites themselves questioned the place of these images among the fine art world as did the printed version the viewer could produce.
With that, does a print of a digitally-produced art piece and/or reproduction become less relevant than an oil painting, or is art just taking on a new form? I think relevance is dependent on the piece itself and how it is used. With the lines blurring between art and technology, I believe it is less important to define art as it is to understand its impact and uses.