←back to thread

122 points colinprince | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.305s | 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 #
1. W3zzy ◴[] No.44510823[source]
The Japanese also look at this from a different angle. A shrine that has been rebuild every few decades is still an ancient shrine to them. A reprint of an ancient block print is still an original to them.

I get confronted with the preservation of buildings quite often and have to point out now and then that the building they are trying to preserve is nowhere near the original. Through the ages we've modified those building to suit our needs. Why stop now?

It's only a matter of preserving culture with respect do or the past.