I really enjoyed reading this article. I think it is truly a conflicting debate over original and clone artwork. However, I think that there is a place in the world for both.
I was in San Giorgio Maggiore in 2007 and I saw the “clone” Veronese. Being inside San Giorgio Maggiore was an interesting experience. It was rather dark and empty inside but the island itself has amazing views. The “clone” painting like the original is massive and its placement is impressive. I really didn’t feel jipped at all. In this particular case because a “clone” was placed in its intended viewing place I believe that the “clone” begins to have substantially more value.
Also, after reading the article I watched a two minute clip of Greenway’s performance. I think that the concept of this piece is impressive and innovative. However, I do believe that subsequent showing with the “clone” are devoid of the artists original intent, which was focused on reviving the aesthetic experience.
My confliction in regards to “clone” art is based solely on the intention of the recreation. I am brought back to the fact that the Roman’s recreated many Greek art works and now they are viewed as treasures. Also, I believe that replicates are beneficial to artists. However, the practice of “cloning” on a mass produced scale is a slippery slope. One that is similar to the allusion and dissatisfaction regarding the Mona Lisa which crushes the once coveted aesthetic experience.