I agree fully that historical objects have an emotional appeal and value
which no reproduction can provide. But in the case of art, I am less
convinced by the absolute argument for 'originals'.
 
Is there not another factor in this debate, and that is the inherent
validity of the (art) object we are looking at? There have been cases
where a picture has been treasured, admired and enjoyed for years, being
labelled as by Rembrandt, for example. Then some scholar comes along with
evidence that it is not by that master, but by a disciple, scholar,
copyist or forger. The painting is removed from display and consigned in
disgrace to a basement store.
 
If the painting was pleasant and interesting to look at, if it aroused
emotions and made people feel inspired, why should it suddenly stop doing
so just because it is given a different label? How much are we conned into
valuing something because of its creator rather than for itself? There have
been radio programmes which play music without announcing the composer
until afterwards, allowing us to judge the piece on its merits - should
the art world not do something similar?
 
I speak as a scientist, with the belief that the test of an idea or a
theory is whether it is convincing to me, rather than whether it was put
forward by Aristotle, Newton or Einstein. It seems to me that art would
be enhanced if it took a similar approach and got away from the cult of
the personality.
 
Of course the origin is important to the _historian_ of art or science,
but not to the appreciation of the object or idea, surely.
 
--
Leonard Will
Information Management Consultant           Tel: +44 81 366 7386
27 Calshot Way, ENFIELD, Middlesex          Email: [log in to unmask]
EN2 7BQ, United Kingdom