Comments on: So Realistic It's Almost Artistic http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/10/01/so_realistic_its_almost_artist/ Reflections on art and architecture by TIME critic Richard Lacayo. Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:49:09 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Gerik http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/10/01/so_realistic_its_almost_artist/comment-page-1/#comment-142 Gerik Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:27:27 +0000 http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/10/01/so_realistic_its_almost_artist/#comment-142 While I appreciate the effort and undoubted quality of the work that was done on the digital reproduction, at the end of the day it just comes across to me as a (presumably) overpriced piece of wallpaper. The appreciation of the original not only involves the skill in which Veronese painted the original, but also the fact that it was a work of human hands. My own issue lies with the way the digital files are treated. I remember reading an article a few years back in the Communications of the ACM about a full 3d scan of Michelangelo's David. Instead of sharing the underlying scan of the artwork, the officials involved instead required people to use a custom application that would only show the virtual statue at a reduced level of detail, allowing full access only to those approved by the museum. Instead of allowing the work to be shared and inspected by everyone, it was restricted in order to preserve control by curators, ostensibly to prevent higher quality tourist souvenir to be 'printed'. It just seems such a waste to put all the time and effort into creating digital archives of our greatest artwork and then to just hide it behind a wall in order to preserve gate receipts at a museum. I'd hate to see what terms the church had to agree to with the Louvre about the use and number of digital reprodctions they are allowed to create of a piece of art that was stolen and who's copyright (if such a thing even existed at the time) expired long ago. While I appreciate the effort and undoubted quality of the work that was done on the digital reproduction, at the end of the day it just comes across to me as a (presumably) overpriced piece of wallpaper. The appreciation of the original not only involves the skill in which Veronese painted the original, but also the fact that it was a work of human hands.

My own issue lies with the way the digital files are treated. I remember reading an article a few years back in the Communications of the ACM about a full 3d scan of Michelangelo's David. Instead of sharing the underlying scan of the artwork, the officials involved instead required people to use a custom application that would only show the virtual statue at a reduced level of detail, allowing full access only to those approved by the museum. Instead of allowing the work to be shared and inspected by everyone, it was restricted in order to preserve control by curators, ostensibly to prevent higher quality tourist souvenir to be 'printed'.

It just seems such a waste to put all the time and effort into creating digital archives of our greatest artwork and then to just hide it behind a wall in order to preserve gate receipts at a museum. I'd hate to see what terms the church had to agree to with the Louvre about the use and number of digital reprodctions they are allowed to create of a piece of art that was stolen and who's copyright (if such a thing even existed at the time) expired long ago.

]]>