Haha.
I don’t know. Pictures of art have a much deeper impact in some ways. It isn’t always a duplication…. it’s a record of events. Think of this:
That Friedrich painting was destroyed in 1945, World War 2. It doesn’t exist. Yet you are looking at it. The photographic record of that painting is all that exists…. and just the same it records a moment in time. It might not be a perfect replication of the “vinyl”, but it is certainly important to have that recording.
So pictures of art sometimes have to substitute for the art itself, and yes.. I am sure there is a quality issue in that recording.
But it’s true….
Those pictures of the art I saw record a moment in time for me… and how my perception emotively paid attention to what existed in those galleries. 15 years ago, I might not have understood Yves Klein (I would have, but that’s beyond the point)….. but now I grasp it in different ways. As I look back, I see my picture of Hopper from my 1990 gallery experience as totally different than this one.
My lens on the same piece of art simply doesn’t speak to the painting – so much as it speaks to how I have grown and changed. When I look at the two side by side, it might not be a faithful interpretation of the original “recording”, but it is a fantastic earmark on my passage of time.
So just like a favorite song through laundromat speakers –
This medium will never, ever replicate the work. But there *is* a certain aesthetic to how it exists in this format… and there is something to be gained from it.
Well, at least for me. That I can tell you.