Hi Jack,
Thank you for your comments. Regarding sculpture vs painting, I sated my opinion but its a subject we can leave to art experts to discuss. Here's one expert's opinion:
http://www.italianrenaissanceresources.com/units/unit-3/sub-page-03/painting-versus-sculpture/
Regarding 3D cinema -once sufficiently refined- being preferable to 2D, I don't agree for the reasons I stated before. The issue is not technical quality of the images. It is far more fundamental. I came up with the notion of 3D film and cinema (or 3D art in general) adding little to enhance visual aesthetics on my own. Since then, I did some research and noticed that I am not alone in noticing this. Here is an excellent article on the subject:
https://www.dr-lex.be/info-stuff/3dfail.html
This author's view is in agreement with the "utilitarian nature" of stereoscopic vision I mentioned in my above post. He explains some further aspects too. For example, he argues that watching a film is a
passive experience, and that is not a bad thing. People go to a cinema or sit behind their TV to relax and do absolutely nothing during 90 to 120 minutes. While looking at things in a 3D world is not a passive process, it is
very active.
The notion of stereoscopic vision being important when we need to actively interact with the environment is a very deep concept. Depth perception is needed if you are a hunter (like me) or predator (like a lion). If you are a software engineer working for Google or an antelope running away from a lion, you don't need it
Sincerely,
-Omid