katlyn

The difference between what we see and what we know; in my opinion, the main point the reading was trying to get across. The author argues that how we see things will be affected by what we already know. That may be true, it may not be, but to me the area I had the most response to was the author’s idea that if a great work of art is replicated, it will indefinitely loose its value. I do not find that to be true. By replicating a piece of art, it becomes susceptible to the opinions and ideas of many people. Art itself is supposed to induce thought. For example, paintings with blunt titles (like one of the examples used in the book from the reading) are “dry� because that way the interpretation of the painting is open to whatever the viewer sees in it. I think that being able to shape a personal opinion of a piece of art work is much more thought provoking than reading an excerpt that describes exactly what, whom, and why a painting portrays something. To say that a piece of art isn’t going to mean as much once duplicated is incorrect. By duplicating, many people have the opportunity to observe fine pieces of art work, and draw from those pieces their own opinions. Granted, if someone told me I could hop a plane to Paris to see the Mona Lisa up close and personal you can believe I wouldn’t turn that down, but in doing that, not only are you taking the art into account, but the atmosphere, surroundings, and other outside influences as well. Sure, that could provide a completely different experience in comparison with viewing it in the comfort of your own home, but that’s not the point. The point is that art is meant to be seen. Not everyone has the resources to fly around the world and “see it for themselves�. By duplicating works of art, personal opinions, conclusions, revelations, etc. etc. are opened to many people. Art shouldn’t be about if your lucky enough to witness it up close, but an equal opportunity for anyone willing to spend the time to think about it.