As far as the notion of "cloning" paintings goes, I believe that reproductions are a useful tool in education, but they are in my opinion no substitute for the original. Originals are handcrafted, and hold the honor of having been worked on, labored over, and would have lived with the artist him/herself. Each brushstroke is indicative of the emotions that the artist was feeling at the time. A reproduction, "identical" as it may seem, will never have the same magic as the original.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
I found this article on the "cloning" of The Last Supper to be very interesting, while simultaneously being a little upsetting. I still can't get over the fact that it was permissible to project light onto one of the most fragile and famous paintings in the world. Although clearly they did their research and believed it to be safe, how can you really be sure? In my opinion, if you respect the painting at all, you shouldn't even be tempted to risk it. They were able to "clone" the painting, and project it in a separate space, so why not use the reproduction with the light installation?