Printable View
Real paintings have a depth and complexity to them that cannot be conveyed in a print or on-screen image. For instance, some artists like to dab on as little paint as it takes to cover an area, while others use so much paint that it threatens to fall off the canvas. Three-dimensional art carries it own set of details.
Sure, I could write a story like Joyce or Mailer, a poem like Milton or Byron, but that in no way diminishes the value of the originals.
first off, Nick is right about the physical quality of originals. paintings aren't flat.
I'm not sure of how you took Hero's comments, but I saw it as artists, and their art, are eventually categorized and turned into icons by society, and respected for reasons that progress towards no longer having anything to do with their art.
Honestly, Nick, I agree with most of the properties you're applying to art(save for the "tugging at the soul", and odd correlation between not having art and justifying evil actions), but it is not as if the art that was destroyed was the only way to get that experience.
It is not as if the experiences are required, nor is art the only means of finding them. Your ability to be a buddhist does not change when a giant statue of Buddha is lost.Experiencing art is a frivolity,
while nice, losing some is not horrific. Remove people's ability to create art, well thats something else entirely. . .
What really saddens me is tomb theives of Egypt--who took gold pieces from tombs and melted them down to sell them by weight. If all of that was kept, it would've provided today's archaelogists or whoever with a wealth of information.
On the topic of stealing paintings, what happened to Picasso?
I really feel like I should care about this, but I just don't give a shit.