4 ms·
I feel like reducing historical art pieces to "beautiful images" doesn't really capture what it means when something is art. For instance, you can view reproduc
by faitswulff 8y ago
I feel like reducing historical art pieces to "beautiful images" doesn't really capture what it means when something is art. For instance, you can view reproduced images of famous artwork whenever you want online, so what makes it valuable, therefore, is not just the imagery.
- ZenPsycho 8y agoSalvador Dalí is a notorious troll in this regard. Many of his works are extremely well known by their reproductions. but he plays with scale- the originals are often absurdly smaller or larger than you imagine from the reproductions.
- jmkd 8y agoNo one ever complained of flickr "Oh it's okay but you need to see the real thing", so it's interesting how this viewpoint is absolutely medium-specific. I would argue plenty of paintings are better viewed online, sculptures far less so. Is it better to have a restricted view at the back of a live performance or see a perfectly edited video later? It's hard to be moved shuffling through queues at the Louvre.
- ska 8y agoMany types of paintings are fundamentally three dimensional - something that really isn't captured in an image. You make a good point about the different value of different presentations. In some ways the bad seat is better than the video, in others not.