←back to thread

112 points colinprince | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
sharkjacobs ◴[] No.44506614[source]
What's the advantage of seeing an original piece of art over a serviceable replica? Especially in the case where the "original" is a print, one of dozens.

Obviously "serviceable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, a replica might simply not be very good, might not capture some vital characteristic of the thing which makes it a great work.

But otherwise, it's basically that the knowledge of how important and significant this work is puts the viewer in a more receptive frame of mind, right?

To be clear, that's not nothing. I of course know firsthand how much that affects the impact of a painting, museums and galleries care a lot about how they display their collection. But is that it?

replies(11): >>44506633 #>>44506680 #>>44506682 #>>44506707 #>>44506729 #>>44506750 #>>44506787 #>>44507016 #>>44507110 #>>44507613 #>>44510823 #
treetalker ◴[] No.44506682[source]
As you say, some works seem to lose something in any reproduction. La Giaconda (Mona Lisa) is a great example: any reproduction you may have seen in books or online hasn't captured the rainbow of background color in the original, or the sensation of viewing a living person sitting for a portrait when viewed at a few paces in the Louvre.
replies(3): >>44506979 #>>44507057 #>>44509808 #
1. klausa ◴[] No.44507057[source]
That's fascinating response! Mona Lisa is, to me, _the_ example of an artwork that is actually better viewed online instead of in person.

The painting is way smaller than you expect, it's always crowded with folks who want to take selfies, it's behind so many layers of glass/plastic that distort the colors — it's really, really hard to actually have any chance to appreciate it person.