ockham opened this issue on Mar 01, 2008 · 55 posts
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 04 March 2008 at 12:44 PM
Ack -- it's just too bad that they didn't have digital cameras back then. That would solve the argument. But of course if they'd had digital cameras -- the technology probably would have changed so much by now that it'd be questionable as to whether or not we could retrieve the old original digital images. Sort of like trying to find a drive to read a 1980's-era CD 300 years from now. Highly doubtful that it'll be possible.
So maybe digital cameras in the 1600's wouldn't have solved the problem, after all. Perhaps the 'carbon-copy' artist gave us something that has lasted longer than digital images would have.
IMO, this debate is one without a definitive answer. Or at least the portion of the debate which pertains to what Bach actually looked like -- the cultural debate is a different matter.
From what I've read of Bach, he likely did have steely eyes.
In current-day sitcoms, the father is always the dumb one. The mother isn't quite as dumb as the dad -- but even she's no match for her smarter-by-far-than-any-stupid-parent-or-adult children.
I suppose that it's always amusing to turn reality on its head. Make the fictional world upside-down from the real one. Where the problem comes in lies in the fact that some people are dumb enough to be influenced by the sitcoms into thinking that's how things actually are...........so why should they listen to their stupid parents, anyway?