CNM190 - Week 6

CNM190 - Week 6 - from its creator perhaps the proper word...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CNM 190 – Week 6 "Is there something about a work of fine art which can never even in theory be copied? Is the work which the master himself put his hand to unique in its essence? And if it is, is this uniqueness in fact aesthetic? Or is it?assuming that an indistinguishable copy could be made?sentimental and historical?" I believe that a work of fine art can never be successfully copied. For example, a digital photocopy of the “Mona Lisa” just isn’t the same thing as the real one. Even if a painting is successfully copied and is indistinguishable in every way from the original one, it would be missing its soul; it would be like a clone of the original; it may be a very good clone, but a clone nonetheless. I think each piece of art carries with it a certain sentimental quality
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: from its creator; perhaps the proper word is “heritage.” Such a quality cannot be found in a copy. Take for another example, Munch’s painting “The Scream.” What if thieves made an exact copy of it, stole the original, and put the fake in its place at the museum? The casual visitor who saw the fake painting would feel the same as if the real one were there. But suppose, later that night, the thieves were caught and turned up on the news. How would the visitor feel then? Probably like he was cheated, because he saw a fake, and not the real thing. If people went to museums purely for aesthetic pleasure, he would not have felt that way. Thus I think that art carries with it a certain uniqueness that cannot be replicated....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online