cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/questions/p/1261259/if-you-could-create-artistic-works-like-the-mona-lisa-gioconda-in-better-quality-should
I feel like I’ve been thinking about this too much in the last few days.
If you could recreate every drawing in history digitally or in better quality overall, wouldn’t your work be considered superior?
Why the hell isn’t there a nonprofit project that does this already?
Define “better quality”
Mainly, better details, colors and digitalization of the art.
I wouldn’t call that better “quality”, I’d call it greater detail. More colours doesn’t automatically equal better and the same is true for details or digitilization
That description doesn’t apply to art.
If more details, more accurate colors, and a digital file were enough to consider a work better, then all of the best art would be photographs taken by high-quality cameras. Fidelity can assist in art, but it is not art in and of itself, and increasing fidelity does not necessarily increase the quality of the art (even if it’s done by the original artist).
Remasters are a special case where fidelity is generally considered to be a straight upgrade. Generally, the master holds a relatively accurate representation of the artist’s original vision, but the copies may well be compromised due to limitations (usually technological). If you can overcome those limitations, then you generally should; while e.g. a piece of music on an 8-track cassette is better than nothing, precious few people would actually prefer it to a CD, high-bitrate MP3, or FLAC (or even a compact cassette). Similarly, video games are generally compromised due to system limitations, and games like Star Wars: Dark Forces Remastered really feel like what the creators were trying to make but had to downgrade to get it to actually run on people’s computers.
Assuming you mean better than the original, this makes no sense. It seems like you are trying to apply criteria that apply to something that is a capture of the real world, like a photograph or recording, where what is captured is limited by simple quantitative factors like numbers of pixels and shades of color, and light levels.
Art like the Mona Lisa is not a simple snapshot of some real original, and that same criteria does not apply. It is valued for the art and nuances in the use of the media, and its affect on the viewer, not for some objective closeness to some real world original. If you made a version of the Mona Lisa that was more like a photograph of Leonardo’s model, it would be considered worse, not better.
I think the question is more interesting if you take out the “better quality” qualification. What does better quality even mean? That’s too subjective. I think what we’re trying to figure out is whether an original has any properties to it that a copy cannot.
Let’s say your grandma dies and leaves you something special in memory of her - a ring. Maybe it was her wedding ring and you wear it every day; it makes you feel close to her. Now say I replaced that ring with an identical copy. Does that change anything? Is there some special property imbued in the original? Does it make a difference if I tell you about the swap immediately or if you wear the “fake” for a year before finding out?
There are forgers who can make near identical copies of art. It’s illegal because no one wants a “fake.” But why? In the art world, I think it has a lot to do with exclusivity. The value is in there being only one.
It’s an interesting question that I think is highly subjective. Exclusivity could also play a part In your ring example. Was the grandmothers ring bespoke? If so, even a replica will still be “two” of a kind and I could see the sentimental attributes remaining. However if it was a mass produced item then the only special part was that it was hers, which the replica has lost.
I personally am OK with digitising photographs, and sometimes even pictures of items, because the memoroes they spark are most important to me, however a physical object definitely does have an extra kick if it’s special enough.
In the end sentiment is not very logical, and I think because of that we can never have a true answer.
No. A copy of an artist’s work is never “superior” to the original. Having to create from a blank canvas is way more impressive than duplicating what someone already did.
But also this question sounds like it’s about to lead to AI apologetics.
LOL, what kind of better quality?
As I said in other comment:
Mainly, better details, colors and digitalization of the art.
That doesn’t make it better in any way. Specially the digitalisation part makes me think you haven’t seen many art expressions that weren’t on a screen.
No.
Why?
Choosing the mona lisa is an interesting example because it’s pretty unremarkable as a painting, and most of its fame comes from having been stolen, rather than its artistic merits. Certainly making it larger would be helpful practically, given how small and crowded the space they show it in is, but would miss the mark entirely on why people want to see it, since wouldn’t be the actual object that was the subject of the heist. Most of why I go to art museums, though, is to understand the progression of the conversation about Art that takes place on canvas over the centuries, and having a “better quality” reproduction would hinder, rather than help me, as I want to know what Kandinsky and Mondrian had to say about space and rhythm more than I want to see some kind of idealized iteration on their most famous works.
Here’s the problem:
The vast majority of people have never seen the works of the old masters in person, only copies on their devices or pictures in print.
When you see a painting like that in person, the texture and brush strokes interact with the light in the room to give you a completely luminous experience.
But more to the point, that experience cannot be reproduced digitally. Even a photograph of the actual Mona Lisa is inferior to actually seeing the Mona Lisa.
I encourage everyone, where possible, to get to your local museums and see what you can see. It’s a wonderful experience!
