Reproductions of art may satisfy some people, but most people who are
interested in art in the first place will only be encouraged to view the
original by having seen copies. I would be willing to bet that even the
popularity of balloons based on Munch's "Scream" has increased visits to
the original. I don't favor cheap, tawdry, tasteless reproductions, and
any museum (or artist) has a right to refuse inappropriate uses of their
art, but, generally speaking, I'm all for greater dissemination of art
in a wide variety of forms because that's part of the education process.
Reproductions just whet my appetite for seeing the original, and I don't
think that's unusual. Why should we go to a museum to see the original
when we can look at a reproduction on our wall? Ah, that's a question
which more museum people should ponder: if they understood the answer,
we might see a little less nonsense about virtual exhibits, wax museums,
etc. (Harrumph.) Why do people want to see the "real thing" in a museum
when they can look at a copy? Why get a Rolex when you can have a cheap
copy? Why walk across the street to see a movie star when you can see
their image on tape any time you want? Why would anyone want to see
Elvis in concert when they could just hear a record (or for that matter,
why go see him at the carwash where I spotted him working last week?).
Who can say? Perhaps it's just that reality has that certain je ne sais
quoi, n'est-ce pas? Of course, I'm speaking of the work of art as a real
object, not that other reality portrayed in a representational work (who
needs that?).  :-)

--David Haberstich