On Apr 18, 1996 10:00:05, 'Robin Panza <[log in to unmask]>' wrote:


>This is something that needs a proper study.  I've seen thousands of
images of
>"Mona Lisa", and there must be hundreds of thousands of images around, yet

>people still go to considerable effort to see the real thing.  Once one
has
>seen an original of any of the great masters, one realizes how poor a
>representation they've been looking at in reproductions.

Mona Lisa?  I saw the real thing this last summer.  Well, I saw the case in
which it was held, and I managed to see "the real thing" as displayed on
the 3x3 viewing screen of a tourist's camcorder held above his head.
That's as close as I could get.  The real thing: it is in the camera of the
beholder. Topic for discussion: the surrogate image as reality.

How many "real" situations substitute surrogate objects for real ones?  The
caryatids on the Erechtheon,  the Tres Riches Heures du duc de Berry at
Chantilly, and perhaps countless other objects are shown to the public as
simulacra.  Not quite the same as the cast room in the V&A, for there the
objects are at least intended to be seen as reproductions.  If we so easily
accept the facsimile for reality, how far away are we from accepting
virtuality for reality?
--

Robert A. Baron
Museum Computer Consultant
P.O. Box 93, Larchmont N.Y. 10538
[log in to unmask]