Hope this single sentence quotation isn’t too long for you:
Taken the duly noted sarcasm aside …
Are brush strokes in a painting not a “part of an image” according to this imaginary “classical definition”?
Besides that you apparently still confuse the technical with the artistic aspect, I don’t think that “brush strokes” are a good example as they hardly resemble random patterns but are rather part of the signal also from a technical point of view.
Also, picking up the claim of using “imaginary” definitions, some counter question for you:
Video systems, but also film stock reproductions have a quality attribute such as the signal-to-noise ratio. How does that measurement preserve any meaning whatsoever if one defines the noise as being part of the image as well in technical terms (not artistic ones)? In the same way, any higher noise floors of photo cameras could retrospectively redefined as their noise being intended art. One can, but it is important to neither neglect the truely intended “artefacts” (to be preserved) nor to romanticize the real artefacts to be art (ideally not to be introduced/recorded in the first place, but if so, rather preserved as well instead of damaging the intended signal by trying to remove the artefacts).
Film isn’t just a means of capturing what is in front of you. The celluloid itself is the art piece.
That depends on the definition. From a technical perspective, it would in fact ideally just capture the source with as little alteration as possible. From an artistic perspective, the material itself may be treated as part of the art piece, yes.
You may say you are on the side of preserving supposed “artifacts,” but this faulty reasoning is what leads to James Cameron/Peter Jackson’s ridiculous DNR[…]
Not necessarily, as myself as an example intended to demonatrate, and by differentiating between the technical and the artistic aspect.
I certainly wouldn’t have filtered it so my way of thinking is certainly not what leads to those highly questionable releases nowadays.
Neither am I sure whether I would deprecate film stock as an option for new productions, on the other hand, again from a technical point of view, film is pretty flawed when used for analog information (which virtually always is the case except maybe AC3 and SDDS back in the days for audio) and at least some of the preference towards it shows quite some similarity to the preference for vinyl records which against all audiophile claims aren’t better, but worse than any halfway decent PCM recording.