View of "Impossible" Caravaggio exhibit at Loyola University in Chicago
In Italy, there is a trend to launch ‘Impossible Exhibitions” for renowned artists, such as Raphael, Leonard, and Caravaggio. In these exhibitions, all the works of art produced by one artist are assembled together in a museum setting. Unfortunately, it is impossible to pull together all the works of art that are scattered in various public and private collections across many nations. The only way to display an “Impossible Exhibition” is by projecting high-resolution reproductions of works of art. For the last several years, Caravaggio: an impossible exhibition has traveled to various venues, including Loyola University in Chicago. Explore images of the Caravaggio show in the link below. Would you go to a museum to see digital reproductions of famous works of art? Do you think it is important to see “real” works of art, or are reproductions just as effective?
Gallery of the views from Caravaggio: The Impossible Exhibition
Groups 4, 5, and 6: Please submit a post by Saturday, May 12
Groups 1, 2, and 3: Please comment on a post by Saturday, May 12
I don’t think I would be able to go to a museum to see digital reproductions of famous works of art. I could just stay home and watch the images from my computer and look at it as close as I want without worrying of the securities telling me to step back. I could also save some money on transportation and admission to the galleries. Yes, the location on where the art is located makes it interesting to look at and maybe that would be something that could convince me to go visit the digital art. I believe that it is important to see the “real” works of art because you are seeing art that was created many years ago making it seem like your looking into the past. You could see the brush works and details the artist painted. It is also important to see the real thing because it shows you how its suppose to be done perfectly without mistakes. And let’s not forget we are seeing the art works of FAMOUS people, who arts are shown on tv, movies, books and internet.
I agree, it takes value away from the experience but I doubt it will be expensive and it’s just something they did to bring the works of art together because people would have to go to a lot of museums to see all the works of art that are in this exhibit anyways. Also if it’s high resolution you would be able to see the brush strokes and little details just as if you were in front of the real painting because usually people don’t get too close to the works of art anyway to give other people room to look.
Now a days technology has gotten so out of hand that literally everything is at your finger tips, paintings, works of art , sculptures, you name it can all be seen by computer. i do agree in that a digital replication of a piece of art isn’t the same as looking a the real one because you can get the same thing from a high resolution-ed ipad , actually having the painting in front of you to observe it down to the last stroke is giving you a piece of history for u to analyze it with your own eyes.
its bad enough we have are eyes on nothing but are computers phones and ipods all day but now we cant even see art on paper anymore. i might as well see this guys art on my computer screen then to go to a museum. whats next hologram sculptures. this is a waste of electricity as well. i wouldnt go to this place in less it had orginal art work instead
i agree because all you do is walk around and always see people texting, and surfing the web. people don’t go out anymore and now to see art work on a screen is stupid. whats the point of going to a museum then, you won’t get to actually see real artwork on a canvas or paper.
I wouldn’t be able to go to a museum like this because its not the original piece of art but a computer copy of the art that made that artist famous. If I wanted to see their art I want it to be the original one that was made on paper and not a computer copy.
I think the difference between seeing artwork on your PC or in a book as opposed to a museum viewing you dont really get the grandeur of it until you see it person. Certain paintings that take up a page in a book take up entire walls in reality and seeing it in it actual form allows me to appreciate it more. The digital viewings seem to be consistent with the size and details of the original. I like the idea of seeing all of a particular artists work in one room whether its digital or not. To be able to see the progression of their work throughout their career as a window to their own life is pretty cool.
I agree, theres no point of going to see digital reproductions of famous art when we can just google them online and see for ourselves. However, the setting and location looks cool and realistic. It is important to go visit a museum to see the artworks in it original form to see the details and capture the true aspects of the art. And it does make the viewers have a greater appreciation fot the art and artist.
i belive its important to see real art , i dont consider photos and images a pieces of art .
a real piece of art has meaning to where it comes from. some people belive that art can be found anywhere but if we go back to roman art that probaly has to be one of the best time periods to find real art.
I would definitely go to a museum to see digital reproductions of famous pieces of art. I mean why not. The exhibit could have works that I may never have a chance to see. Plus, the digital reproductions will be of the highest quality. Don’t get me wrong, nothing would compare to an original, but this would be an opportunity to see famous pieces of art in their original scale. I don’t think the curators are doing this with the intent of saying this is just as good as the original. They are giving people a chance to see a high quality substitute because many people will never see the originals.
I agree, I wouldn’t mind seeing pieces of art as a digital reproduction in person. We are advancing more with technology and it’s better taking the time to actually go out then just sitting around staring at the computer or a portable device to see some popular images. I also think the curators are not expecting people to accept this as real art but just to have a sense of what it would look like to have a famous work of art up close. Plus to see it in high definition it would be cool, as technology continues to progress we would be changing traditions and some people can save money if they don’t have the time or money to travel and see the originals.
I agree, I wouldn’t mind going to see this exhibit. It looks pretty cool, and able to see some of the famous pieces in HD quality all together under one roof. I know you could see it on your computer too but its just not going to be the same thing, such as walking around in the space, and the large blown up paintings. You just won’t get the same feeling the exhibit is suppose to give you in different colors and themes.
i believe it is a great attempt to show all the types of art on high resolution screens to show off the art, its a super great idea, it has to be understood that theart works are scattered, but it should also show an actual art from the artist to compare the art works. granted ur probably gonna get a better sence of color and clarity from the high-resotuiton screens but everyone will have there prefference of what they’d like to see in an art exhibit
I don’t have any problem going to see reproductions of these famous works of art because we should go to exhibitions not only for the paintings but also to see the how the environment, displays and design of the exhibition is important. When I check The Impossible Exhibition gallery, it was displayed perfect and design of the exhibition is also kind of art.
The Caravaggio Show might seem like an aberration of the original works. Original art works could be either scattered throughout several cities and museums or in the hands of private collectors. It may be next to impossible to exhibit them in one place or, at the same time. I am neither against nor find it wasteful or even pointless to see copies of the originals. If an exhibit is showing the highest quality reproductions today’s technology can create, then, why not? It would certainly be more affordable than to run all over Italy or Europe chasing after the original works. At least these reproductions can give us a taste of the originals for a fraction of the cost of airfare.
I agree with what other people are saying that sometimes it is just as effective to see a reproduction of a piece of art. It is economically impossible to go visit a museum in a different country which showcases the original piece of art. If there is an opportunity to view a reproduction, it would be just as great as the original.
They take a passing shot at being honest about what they’re doing. Organizers stress the show is not intended to replace the experience of seeing the original art but to serve as an exciting teaching tool. It’s also a way to view complete works of a great artist in a single setting at a time when I would think soaring insurance costs and fears of terrorism and theft make exhibitions like this rare.
Although technology has become more capable of capturing details of the world around in a more vivid view than before where computers allow us to view the millions of different colors and experience things in their most real state. I feel that art should be viewed as the artist or maker intended. The works are to my knowledge best viewed in their tangible ways of seeing texture, style and different methods that may not be able to captured correctly through video or photos of the work. I believe presentations of videos may be used for perhaps children to grasp certain basic concepts but for adults Art should be viewed in Real Life.