It's more noteworthy that very small works can be easier to study on screen, and then there's obviously the advantage of a total absence of contention for the p

It's more noteworthy that very small works can be easier to study on screen, and then there's obviously the advantage of a total absence of contention for the physical space directly in front of the print/painting. Rothko's works are often installed in "environments" like at Tate Modern or in Houston. Many people can experience them at the same time and there's not much to be gained from closing in to six inch viewing distance. They're works of the movie age. On the other hand, the situation with a Durer print or some other delicate miniature image is really helped by digital distribution. For 3D artifacts, being able to orbit them in a viewer is another good thing that we'll probably see more of. Lightfields, even. Rothko is an interesting case for digital reproduction because his work is all about aura and atmosphere but, technically, his work is not exactly impossible to fake. Is his work really spiritual or maybe a bit bogus, for that reason of being grandiose and imposing yet also "easy"? Best argument, I think, in favour of Rothko and the like is the idea that "what's difficult is not to make something, but to put oneself in a state conducive to making." (Brancusi) How different complex, technical software engineering is to the simplicity of even the most elaborate painting/sculpture...