6 ms·

Actually, imho, the AMAZING ORIGINAL THINGS are actually useless. You can not touch them, get close, rotate them, look at them properly, take your time. You are

Actually, imho, the AMAZING ORIGINAL THINGS are actually useless. You can not touch them, get close, rotate them, look at them properly, take your time. You are just number 29387 that day visiting the Mona Lisa, you get 5s to view it, then the line moves on. A high-res photo or 3d-scan allows you to do all those things (maybe except really touching them). So aside from the emotional benefit of having been near the real original piece for a few seconds, all digital derivatives are logically far better.

1123581321 2y ago
Five seconds is brutally short. What painting has the largest area of appreciation, when notoriety or quality is multiplied by time allowed to view it?
- semi-extrinsic 2y ago
  The Scream by Munch can be viewed for several hours at a time. It's actually limited by efforts to conserve the painting, so the museum only expose it to light for a few hours per day. If you time your visit to avoid the tourist season in den Haag, I think you can also view Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring for essentially as long as you like.
- eichin 2y ago
  "largest area" immediately brought "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" to mind - not for actual impact, just because the physical painting is nearly 10 feet across, which noone seems to expect. Also it's on one wall of an enormous room with plenty of room for people to circulate, in a gallery that has various options for free access (mostly aimed at locals and students, but the art institute doesn't seem too picky about it.)
  - 1123581321 2y ago
    That one I have seen, and it is grand. I live in Illinois so have many options for free viewing.
rootusrootus 2y ago
When we were there, I took a picture of the Mona Lisa strictly for the crowd in the foreground. To capture the memory of the stupid number of people who seemingly only come to the museum to see that one piece of art. Then we went and spent a few hours enjoying the rest of the museum, where there is plenty of art I appreciated more.
mavhc 2y ago
I stood in front of it for at least 10 minutes, the trick is to go in the evenings. Being behind a crappy plastic shield didn't help though
eptcyka 2y ago
I’ve been told that digital (and analogue) photography still cannot reproduce all the colors in good enough detail, and the screens are still not good enough to reproduce the details that can be seen in person.

1123581321 2y ago

Five seconds is brutally short. What painting has the largest area of appreciation, when notoriety or quality is multiplied by time allowed to view it?

semi-extrinsic 2y ago
The Scream by Munch can be viewed for several hours at a time. It's actually limited by efforts to conserve the painting, so the museum only expose it to light for a few hours per day. If you time your visit to avoid the tourist season in den Haag, I think you can also view Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring for essentially as long as you like.
eichin 2y ago
"largest area" immediately brought "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" to mind - not for actual impact, just because the physical painting is nearly 10 feet across, which noone seems to expect. Also it's on one wall of an enormous room with plenty of room for people to circulate, in a gallery that has various options for free access (mostly aimed at locals and students, but the art institute doesn't seem too picky about it.)
- 1123581321 2y ago
  That one I have seen, and it is grand. I live in Illinois so have many options for free viewing.

rootusrootus 2y ago

When we were there, I took a picture of the Mona Lisa strictly for the crowd in the foreground. To capture the memory of the stupid number of people who seemingly only come to the museum to see that one piece of art. Then we went and spent a few hours enjoying the rest of the museum, where there is plenty of art I appreciated more.

mavhc 2y ago

I stood in front of it for at least 10 minutes, the trick is to go in the evenings. Being behind a crappy plastic shield didn't help though

eptcyka 2y ago

I’ve been told that digital (and analogue) photography still cannot reproduce all the colors in good enough detail, and the screens are still not good enough to reproduce the details that can be seen in person.