Mike..... wrote:
> Following up to d4g4h4@yahoo.co.ukDavid Horne, _the_ chancellor
>
> >> The point is that a painting is made of two things "art" and "craft".
> >> A reproduction loses the craft to some degree.
> >
> > It loses the art to 'some degree' as well, because colour (even shades
> > of grey as in Guernica) is part of that, and is lost in reproduction.
>
> IMHO a slight difference in grey isn't going to stop me appreciating
> Guernica in any mreaningful way.
I have never argued that someone won't appreciate a copy. Of course you
do. As a teenager most of my exposure to works of art was through books.
But it's just not the same. I can't think offhand of a single painting
that I didn't like seeing more in reality instead of as a copy. I've
given you the Mondrian example already, but there are plenty more. One
artist in particular who really suffers through photographs is Rothko.
But even with something like the Bosch, a painting I'd been familiar
with for decades (indeed I have a large print of it!) the real thing is
appreciably different. I've a very large Vermeer book with beautiful
reproductions. The real thing always blows me away though, without fail.
This goes for anything painted- illuminated books are also a good
example.
Oh, and a bit of a revelation for me by seeing the real thing was the
Prado's remarkable collection of late Goya- the "black" paintings.
--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins |