When we are able to 3D-print essentially atomically-perfect copies of paintings (capturing every dot of paint, every structure left by the brushes) - what will it mean for art?
When you download a perfect, to-the-brush-stroke, copy of the Mona Lisa on Pirate Bay, would you still go to the Louvre?
Is there inherent value in The Original when things are copyable to the atomical level? Would The Original even lose a portion of its value?
>atomically-perfect copies
you don't know what the fuck are you talking about
3D-printer is a glorified CNC ice cream press and it's never gonna be more than that.
People are still going to want to pay for original, hand drawn, authenticated organic™ art anyway.
I never understood mona lisa and the other expensive art works. What is so special about them? Why do people flock to see these paintings? I would ask them and they would say its the best art work out there. Is that really the case?
Why does something being handpainted increase its value?
You pay for imperfections
Generally, yes.
user, it's like any other tourist attraction. Of course most people just get dragged along - but they are tourist attractions most often for a reason. And well-known paintings are most often known for a well-motivated reason.
That said, taste is always a factor when it comes to art. Maybe the Mona Lisa isn't your taste, maybe Rothko isn't your taste. Art should move you, but you must also give it the chance to do so.
Do you not enjoy any art pieces?
>Do you not enjoy any art pieces?
I enjoy music and am a massive weab.
It's just a meme. Tourists flock to the Louvre every day to see a bunch of paintings they couldn't give less of a shit about because they feel obligated to when they're in Paris.
Normies think that going to museums and galleries will make them look smart and cultured, but when they're there they spend less than 5 seconds looking at each piece then wander off.
yeah ok, fuck you
Far as I know the Mona Lisa got its current fame from being exhibited in the US in the 50s where it was marketed and advertised to shit as the greatest painting. There's a good documentary by notable grumpy art guy Robert Hughes about it.
As for 3d printing paintings, I can't wait to have my own copy of a Turner complete with impasto effects but I don't think it will do much to change our relationship to original artworks vs copies. We already have damn good high quality prints of famous paintings on everything from posters to t shirts, why would another mass produced copy diminish the original any further than it already has?
Benjamins art in the age of mechanical reproduction is all about this reproduction issue, and Danto has stuff about it too, which I can barley remember.
Why do people enjoy art at all? It is much more efficient to use museums/galleries as warehouses or civillian accommodation
It's about originality. A new 3d printed piece of art is still art, because it was the intellectual conception of an artist. Also, effort has gone into paintings, allowing one to adnire the skill of the brush strokes, not just the physical manifestation of the paint.
Why act civilian at all? It's much more efficient to just be cavemen
we'd be able to restore them and touch them up. so the originals would be inferior to the restored touched up copies with exception of value of course.
I guess public perception would suffer as they would be unimpressed looking at originals.
the Mona Lisa is literally only valuable because it got stolen
>Expensive paintings
You all know that they are a fraud used for money laundering right ?
Bad analogy senpai.
OP doesn´t know basic human psychology.
Two identical jeans are made in a Chinese sweat shop by child slave hands. One sells for 50 and another for a 1000 shekels. Keep in mind that they are identical in every way. Why do they sell at different prices? Because one of them has a brand in it that says "Look, if I wear this, it means that I have more money therefore I am higher status than you".
Likewise those who will only have seen the copies of Monalisa etc. will be considered poor uneducated plebs because they didn´t travel to France and took a selfie beside the original and spammed their facebook/instagram with pictures of themselves doing the same fucking face in all of them, even though the two might be identical. Because status.
As to the second part of the question. What will it mean for art? What did photography mean? "Limitless possibilities." What did it really mean? Girls taking selfies and pictures of their feet. So I imagine that whatever it will be, it will serve to boost the egos of normies and some shitty post-modern garbage envolving anuses.
>Is there inherent value in The Original
No. Not as far as a work of art.
Also the Mona Lisa is meme trash. Still better than Warhol though
You are missing the point of the question , one day we WILL be able to create a prefect recreation, we are just a long way from that.
>Atomically perfect
>Printable
You're retarded. Next let's simulate the entire universe with a subset of it.
>one day we WILL be able to create a prefect recreation,
How can you be so sure without knowing jackall about the tech or about technology in general seeing as you are a 1st or 2nd year worthless & humanities major at best.