Dear Art lovers,
 
I've decided to write up my ideas on the Museum of High Quality
Reproductions and the Thrill of the Original into a more or less
coherent, brief article.  Comments are welcome and will be
acknowledged.  Any suggestions on a publication that might be
interested in such an article?  Anyone interested in writing a
coherent response?
 
Here's a synopsis:
 
  Indeed, in response to those self-appointed guardians of Art who insist
  that only original art is good art, one could respond by comparing these
  guardians to a high priesthood trying to limit access to the divine: "Your
  artistic [religious] experience is not authentic unless it's by way of our
  icons [originals]."  Bug off!  Who are you tell me what is or isn't good
  art?  ... On the other hand, who am I to deny people this Thrill they claim
  to get from original art?  If they think there is something special in
  original art, well, then that's their business.  ... Art is a democratic
  pursuit, available not only to the wealthy but to everyone, thanks to
  availability of high quality reproductions.
 
   Don ([log in to unmask])
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
        The Museum of High Quality Reproductions
 
Suppose you read the following story in your local newspaper.
\begin{quote}
The curators and benefactors of a major museum undertook a secret
twenty-year plan to replace the museum's collection with high quality
reproductions.  The reproductions were of such high quality ---
professional artists were employed to make the reproductions --- that they
were almost indistinguishable from the originals.  Certainly, to all but
the most dedicated specialists, there was no way to tell them apart.
 
During the first ten years, the scheme was kept secret and, of course,
visitors to the museum did not suspect what had happened.  However, during
the tenth year, word finally got out what was going on.  People were
outraged at the scam. The museum issued an apology and returned the
originals to the walls and display cases.
\end{quote}
 
No doubt the people felt cheated --- and rightly so: they had been promised
access to authentic, original works but had instead been shown
reproductions.  But why do people insist on seeing originals when the
reproductions are virtually indistinguishable?  Is there some mystical,
nonrational characteristic of originals not present in the reproductions?
 
Suppose now that a similar, more forthright scheme were undertaken:
\begin{quote}
Art lovers formed a foundation to raise funds for the establishment of the
Museum of High Quality Reproductions.  Teams of artists were employed and
placed under the supervision of art historians and critics.  After many
years of hard work, the museum opened on the Mall in Washington, D.C.  The
museum contained reproductions of thousands of works, in original media,
from the great museums of the world.
 
Some people were vehemently opposed to the whole idea of a museum of
reproductions, accusing the administrators of degrading great works of art
and of lacking a respect for authenticity.  And indeed it took several
years of advertising and public education before people came to accept the
concept.  But ultimately, to the chagrin of certain collectors and art
critics, the museum became a success and people flocked to the museum.  As
the idea caught on, similar museums were established throughout the world.
\end{quote}
 
Do you think people would flock to such a museum?
Do you think people {\em should} flock to such a museum?
 
My aim in all of this is twofold.  First, I want briefly to analyze the
nature of this Thrill of the Original: why do people insist on seeing
original works of art as opposed to almost indistinguishable reproductions?
Second, I want to suggest that if people would only give up their
insistence on seeing original works, then there would be important
benefits.
 
No doubt many people do feel that something is missing in a reproduction.
Specifically, many people get a {\em Thrill} just from knowing that they're
in the presence of an original work of art, but not when they're viewing an
(almost) indistinguishable reproduction.  In this sense, great art serves a
similar function as religious icons and talismans, with the Master artist
taking the place of the saint or savior as the focus of respect and
adoration.  People want to be in the presence of the {\em very} object
created by the Master.
 
Indeed, in response to those self-appointed guardians of Art who insist
that only original art is good art, one could respond by comparing these
guardians to a high priesthood trying to limit access to the divine: "Your
artistic [religious] experience is not authentic unless it's by way of our
icons [originals]."  Bug off!  Who are you tell me what is or isn't good
art?  Isn't it already the case that many museums exhibit
castings/duplicates of sculptor? Aren't many works of art on display in
museums largely restorations anyway?  Moreover, the insistence on originals
reduces art to exclusive commodities to be owned and collected by the
wealthy and privileged rather than creations to be studied and enjoyed by
all.
 
On the other hand, who am I to deny people this Thrill they claim to get
from original art?  If they think there is something special in original
art, well, then that's their business.  Museums can continue to cater to
these peoples' Thrill by displaying original works.
 
But for those people like me who don't care whether they're viewing an
original or a reproduction, the Museum of High Quality Reproduction would
be a godsend: there would be no need to travel to four corners of the earth
to enjoy great art.  Other benefits for society would be: less damage to
the originals [this would be especially important for those people still
under the spell of the Thrill], decreased crowding at major exhibitions,
and more business for artists and critics.
 
I agree that reproductions should be clearly labeled as such.  And if the
original artist is alive s/he may have to be compensated.  Some questions
to consider are the following.  Should the owners of the originals be
compensated for reproductions?  Should competition and the marketplace
decide which reproductions are to be displayed? Should committees decide?
Is it possible for a reproduction to be {\em better} than the original
(e.g., if the original is old and deteriorating)?
 
As a first step in providing an aesthetic theory of reproduced art, I
suggest that images, not just objects, have value.  The value of an
artist's creation lies not in the material of the object itself but in the
image (information) expressed by it, by virtue of the the skill and vision
it took to create it.  It is no insult to the artist (in fact it is
flattery) if we make reproductions.  In a sense, a reproduction obtains its
value by borrowing it from the original, which obtained it by infusion from
the artist.  The value of a reproduction is like a flame passed to one
candle from another.  And Art is a democratic pursuit, available not only
to the wealthy but to everyone, thanks to availability of high quality
reproductions.
 
   Donald A. Smith ([log in to unmask])