Age of mechanical reproduction

This piece focuses on the differences between “pure” and reproduced art. It focuses on the differences between the two and how that distinguishes how to compare them, for example a picture of X famous painting online is that just as valuable to audience as the real thing, or is seeing the real painting in person somehow more important?

The question of originality is hard to answer and in this case it would come to a personal preference, but in regards to how western society would answer; our youth speaks for itself. Those born in the age of the internet will often refrain from doing anything that doesn’t indorse personal gain, for example typically spending their money on going to a hot beach rather than a museum, because of the implications in their social circle and what they consider to be valuable.

For me personally if the art piece was simply a 2D image then I could not care for travelling to a museum to witness the artwork. If I was able to see it in sufficient quality, for example Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa which is the most famous painting in the world; I know a lot of people would travel far to France to see the painting first hand in it’s true “pure” form when I would be happy to simply look up the original image on the internet, as that will give me the same feeling as seeing it in a gallery.

For 3D pieces however I believe opposes this ability unless a fully accurate digital model is created which the viewer can look at with every possible angle, a series of images of various angles would also not suffice. For this instance in my opinion only being physically at the model would give the viewer the sufficient feeling of the artwork.