Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]Kathrine L Walker
Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:49:12 -0500 (CDT)
I think the biggest argument for viewing the original is what gets lost
in a slide or print - the artists "fingerprint" A print or slide often
loses the subtelty of color - or the color may be completely wrong.
Impasto brushmarks may show up on a slide, but what about an artist who
uses less obvious brushwork? Have you ever compared the slide of a color
feild painter to the real thing? How about trying to tell a lithograph
from a drawing. Then there is the issue of size. Can you imagine a
child looking at a slide of a Rembrandt print? The real thing may
require a magnifying glass to see the details you can see in a slide - it
give you a whole new view on the expertise/skill of the artist.
If original artworks aren't available, I would certainly use
reproductions, but if at all possible, go for the real thing.
Beach Museum of Art, Kansas State
On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Sheila Hoover wrote:
> My classmate and I are planning for a debate in our 'Introduction to Aesthetics
> in Art Education' course. The question we are discussing:
> Is viewing an original a more "full" aesthetic experience than viewing a
> We are looking for support for the position that viewing an original is the
> "greater" experience, as well as points to the contrary (to prepare for our
> Any information/perspectives would be greatly appreciated.
> Sheila Hoover
> Center for Interfacial Engineering
> 187 Shepherd Labs
> University of Minnesota