|
not so long ago, visual arts were unreproducible, and therefore the products of artists were unique one-of-a-kind objects. art curators were perfectly justified in ensuring that original copies of were were perfectly maintaned and highly valued. nowdays, it's much easier to get a print or reproduction (of paint on canvas, not necessarily of sculpture) and we can study art books and enjoy thousands of paintings from our living room couches. i see no reason to destroy art any more than i see any reason to not play a bach fugue. old art can still be appreciated and enjoyed by new eyes. a worship cult growing from an influential artist is not a bad thing--i would not be able to play jazz piano right now if i didn't have all my CDs of masters. the unduly strong emphasis placed in visual arts on originals vs. reproductions is, i think, an historical artifact that will diminish as reproductions, both on print and on canvas, become better and better. nothing to worry about--as is normal, it takes a little while for technology to become entrenched.
__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.
|