3 ms·
Art is maybe different to historical places That's personal I guess, for me both can evoke the same feelings of wonder of what humankind can do. And for both,
by stinos 11y ago
Art is maybe different to historical places
That's personal I guess, for me both can evoke the same feelings of wonder of what humankind can do. And for both, I have never felt the same, nor have been as blown away by the real thing as by a picture. Maybe I just lack imagination, who knows? For example: I have seen tons of pictures and documentaries of the colosseum in Rome. Sure they give me a feeling of being impressed etc, but none of them do the same to as when actually standing next to the colosseum and looking at it.
- JazCE 11y agoThat's personal I guess, for me both can evoke the same feelings of wonder of what humankind can do. Sorry you're right, it is personal. But, maybe, it's easier to explain why Monks, Kings or Militia built/destroyed something than it is to say why Rothko/Woody Allen/Rembrandt painted/filmed/wrote something a certain way. I'm probably wrong, my knowledge of art isn't particularly great. So what I was trying to say that, yes you can get a feeling from art, but understanding it is harder, or explaining it is harder, so taking a photo/selfie of the Mona Lisa is maybe more acceptable than the conveyor belt selfie of temples/canyons/great buildings.