In Response to Kim's Question

If something is reproduced or even created by a machine would it be considered art?
In Kim's latest blog she raises this question. True, the art which is most prized in our society is the original art work. It is that way for a reason. When we look at a reproduced painting we aren't as impressed as we would be when looking at the original piece of art work in a museum. However, it is still art. Someone put in the thought and hard work or reproducing a piece so that we could admire and appreciate the art from our homes. Many will not have the opportunity to ever see the art up close. Even art created by a machine is still art, someone intended the art to be reproduced by the machine for the enjoyment of the public. If it wasn't for reproduced art many of us would never have the opportunity to see and appreciate art.
We also must consider the softwares we have for graphic design. A machine creates the art, but is it art? Yes, someone put in the intention and creativity. We also have technology in music allowing the world to hear symphonies they might not be able to hear otherwise. Though reproduced, it was still given the proper intention and creativity to be art.

Is technology a threat to art?