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])