On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:05:18 +0100, d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne,
_the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>Tim C. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:48:11 +0100, d4g4h4@yahoo.co.ukDavid Horne, _the_
>> chancellor wrote:
>>
>> > I can't think offhand of a single painting
>> > that I didn't like seeing more in reality instead of as a copy.
>>
>> Mona Lisa. A nice big good quality photo in a glossy book is much better
>> than fighting through the crowd to stand 10 feet away peering through the
>> reflections off the glass behind which a small, dull painting lurks.
>
>That's a special case. (Guernica used to be encased in glass as well
>FWIW.) Based on experience, if ever I could see it up close unhindered,
>I'm sure I'd prefer it to a copy. Wouldn't you?
Just out of curiousity, how would you look at the Last Supper. I saw
it years ago and it was amazingly faded. It had a number of
restorations with a major one finally completed in 1999. When an
original is restored, how is it looked at? As still an original? A
copy? Somewhere in between. |