On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:50:58 +0100, d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:
>Martin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:48:11 +0100, d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_
>> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>
>> >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 can think of many in museums where reflections of light make the image
>> hard to see.
>
>Me too- but that's a fault of the lighting
No, it's the fault of the curator. In a national museum it's a disgrace.
--
Martin
|