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