View of “Impossible” Caravaggio exhibit at Loyola University in Chicago
In Italy, there is a trend to launch “Impossible Exhibitionsâ 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 âImpossible Exhibitionâ 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 ârealâ works of art, or are reproductions just as effective?
Gallery of the views from Caravaggio: The Impossible Exhibition
Please remember to submit all your blog posts before the end of the semester.Â
I think that it would be great to have an exhibition just of pieces from Leonardo, Raphael, and Caravaggio, while it would be highly impossible to put it together because many of the pieces are scattered around and are in public and private places, this exhibition would be something to see. This way is also a great way to dedicate art to them.
I have seen an art show where some of the pieces are just pictures of the original art, itâs a great way to put up the art by the artist but it also limits the hype and excitement people get when they see the original piece. While having remakes or pictures of certain art pieces are great and interesting, it would be more outstanding to see the original pieces.
I think that it’s an honor that this artist reproduce the works of the great artists such as Raphael, Leonard and Caravaggio and put it in an art gallery. I would go see to a museum to see digital reproductions of famous arts of work, although I do not get view the original paintings I would still get a sense of how it looked. I think in some cases reproductions are not as effective as the original because reproductions have more things added in the picture and the artist might try to hard to make it look like the original that it wouldn’t look the same. Besides the originals are always the best and most effective.
The exhibit is really amazing the way they use high resolution screens to make it look like the art work is actually right in front of you. To me some paintings actually look like they belong on television because they look to real to imagine that they were painted. The fact that there on a tv and they were actually painted almost makes it seem fake, but it only helps you see the artist work even better. The way they arranged the exhibit seems that it flows really well together. if I’m not mistaken there was a projection of the art work and the real piece next to it helps you see how accurate the projections are. The exhibit really is amazing and the creativity behind it can really be appreciated.
I believe that seeing the original artwork is better. I think it’s better because the real artwork shows the talent of the artist and the piece of art is expressed the way that the artist intended it to be. That doesn’t mean reproductions are bad. I think that the “Caravaggio: an impossible exhibition” is an excellent idea and I would go because it shows numerous pieces by him and like the name says it is impossible to have all of his original artworks in one place to view, so this is the next best thing.
I also believe that looking at original artworks is better and effective. By looking at reproductions of works of art, you lose a lot of details and you canât fully experience the artwork. No matter how hard people try to make it look real, it wonât be as perfect as the real artistâs one. But as I looked through the pictures from Impossible Exhibition, it didnât seem like theyâre fake. Even though it limits the excitement and hype that I have for the original artworks, but if I get a chance to go there I wouldnât miss it.
While I love seeing real things ,sometimes one have to compromise .with such a famous Artist like Leonardo ,Rapheal and Caravaggio it will difficult to have all these art pieces in one place all the same time.i applaud the exhibitionist for trying allow to show the public such great work of treasure.
People over the Globe have spent millions on these pieces and they would love to keep them private,which is all fair when you think about it.
Not everyone can visit Rome to see these pieces but when it comes to you and your city, you can’t refuse but just appreciate such unique pieces of art in whatever form it may be in.Just a glimpse is all one might need
This question is one that i am not sure how to respond to. I mean, it seems like the reproduction art is amazing and all, but it’s nothing compared to the original art work. I mean it’s one of kind truly and only one person can make it like that. I rather see the original work of art because i can see the extreme and every tiny inch of detail. The tiny things that can’t be seen on a google picture of it. But if i had the choice between seeing a reproduction of work of art from artists as famous as Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, etc, or nothing at all, i think i’d choose the reproduction art.
Witnessing real works of art is clearly not the same as seeing the digital representations of them. By appreciating a real work of art you have a sense of the scale, the materials used in the painting process, and the real colors. Additionally, the feeling of witnessing an original work of art is exciting, mostly when the artist is very famous. However, If an “impossible exhibition” was done with digitalized works of art I would still go since that would be the only way to see all the paintings from one artist at the same time.