..to want all the nation's art sold?

[MarkMarkMarkMark]

Maybe I'm missing the point ... but here goes:

It is relatively cheap to produce a reproduction of any painting that is so good it takes an expert with a microscope quite a while to decide it's not the real thing.

Why then should anyone be less interested in visiting a gallery full of top quality reproductions than in visiting a gallery full of originals? Especially if the difference is that by selling the originals off we generate hundreds of millions of pounds?

If you truly wouldn't pay to visit a gallery of reproductions that you couldn't distinguish from the originals ... what then are you paying for? Is it membership of some elitist club? Some sort of lifestyle statement? Forgive me, but isn't art about the picture? If the picture can be copied... the art doesn't go away?

Mark

yes and you could sell the crown jewls and have replic crown that weighs really light and doesn't give each monarc a head ache wearing. You could also sell of the tower bridge and just get a noraml concreate bridge that would do the job just as well - sell the tower of London I am sure soemone would buy it and we could make the space into a car park for commuaters - in fact why not sell all our heratige off and then if anyone wants to see it we could go abroad to have a peep

UABVU

Apart from all the good the reasons mentioned above it wouldn't be possible to simply show reproductions anyway, as art works have copyrights.

Culture of every kind should be avalible to all not just the supper rich. If an art colection is dismantled and sold of like scrap metal it would be impossible to re build. Selling off assets is not a sustainable way of reducing the deficit.

Mostly for reasons covered, but also: you know, you can't study a reproduction. It will have no history at all.

If the things that you're going to study have been reproduced ... then you can, can't you?

Again - I'm not mocking anyone's love of history - just pointing out that the history is in our minds, not the object.

If (as is entirely possible) somebody made a reproduction of some historic item (a picture for example) that was so accurate nobody could tell them apart ... and then I put those two items behind a screen and shuffled them around ... would I have destroyed history? Nobody would ever be able to say which was which. If I gave them to separate people both would head off with the warm glow that they held a piece of history in their hands (perhaps the cigarette lighter in Lincoln's pocket when he was shot (to borrow from Philip K Dick (thanks catinthehat2))). And if you could prove to one of them later that their item was a fake it might turn from treasured artefact to trash in a moment - but the history was in their head not in their hand (or eye) - the object was just a talisman.

Anyhow - I've poked and elicited an interesting array of cultural and intellectual responses (not a few of which echoed my own) - I shall bow out before the name calling starts :)

Many thanks,
Mark

Mark (have I spelled that right?)

This plan would only work if it were kept secret and everyone believed that they were viewing the originals. In which case, it is a genius plan.

Many people go and see art because they believe it defines them in some way. You would be severely denting the ego of these people by suggesting that the connection with the art they feel they have is merely a construct of their own making

History is actually also in the original, the paint used, grains stuck in the paint, what is on the canvas beneath the paint, the canvas itself. And we are constantly learning new techniques to examine old paintings without damaging them.

Mark, it's as Kaloki says. I study medieval manuscripts, which are very beautiful works of art. However, much of what I'm looking for is stuff like, if I hold the parchment up to the light, is there a shadow where the artist redrew a line or the scribe re-wrote a word? People use very exciting technology to see exactly what went into the making of the manuscript.

A reproduction just can't possibly give you that. And even if you think you have reproduced a huge amount of detail, you can't anticipate what the next scholar or next technology could have revealed.

'and then I put those two items behind a screen and shuffled them around ... would I have destroyed history? Nobody would ever be able to say which was which.'

you would have destroyed a piece of information.

you are absolutely right that a lot of the value of things is intangible, but is there anything wrong with that? Suppose you had an item that had belonged to a much loved member of your family who had passed away, say your mother's ring. And someone comes along (let's say your mother's old boyfriend) and says 'I will give you £20 and an identical ring in exchange.' Most people would have to be very broke indeed to agree to take the £20 and replacement ring. It is normal to value these intangible connections.

I bought a painting at auction the other week - it is by an unknown artist and is of an unknown sitter, hence me being able to afford it despite it being a really lovely painting.... If it had any information attached to it it would have been worth more. However I do get a thrill out of the fact that a hundred years or so a real woman sat in a room wearing the dress I can see in the picture and was painted and I can now look at the actual picture that resulted, that was there at the same time and in the same place.

! thought it was FDR's cigarette lighter.
I do recommend the whole book though: - The Man In The High Castle.
Thanks to MArk I'm going to have to read it YET again.

MArk my words.
This'll end in tears.