Benjamin

Some days ago, I happened to visit the National Gallery of Art in DC. Its a huge place, with multiple floors spread across two wings. I only managed to finish the first floor of one of the wings, but hope to go back to see the rest. The sculptures and paintings I saw were primarily from the 15th-19th century, spanning central and southern European artifacts as well as vases and other priceless items from old Chinese dynasties.

I suppose I felt a little privileged to be able to see these things (even though most of the museums in DC are free. Museums still have a certain elitist aura about them, mostly perceived by people who for whatever reason, refuse to enter one. (Not) Oddly enough, reproductions of many of the paintings I saw there were available in the gallery gift shop as posters and postcards. And I must admit, that while it was cool to see such beautiful and unique works of art in the gallery, that taking a piece of it home in the form of a (relatively) cheap reproduction seemed to trivialize the experience and the artifacts a little bit. (In full disclosure, I did buy a couple of postcards of Van Gogh paintings).

Pictures of all the things that I saw could be posted online to make some sort of online virtual reality or just somebody's photo gallery on Flickr, but does this way of looking at art or creating art, such that it is made available for the masses to see, reduce its value in some way? I suppose its the same feeling as three other guys on the train wearing the same (seemingly unique) t-shirt that I am.

I agree with Benjamin's point that how something is viewed, i.e. the medium, has a lot to do with how its perceived. The Internet, like television and newspapers, is open to anyone who wants to use it and be a part of it. Its become a mass medium where everything is reproducable and everyone has a voice of shared opinions that few are then willing to oppose. It therefore changes the perception and true value of artifacts.