zombie84 said:
The reason being, once photography came around there was no point.
*sigh* [(TM) warbler]
zombie84 said:
Why spend a month's paycheque when you can get a photo or a litho for a fraction of the price?
Because the painting is objectively better? Because it has texture and it looks differently depending on the lighting in the room because different light reflects off of the texture in different ways- you don't just get one sterile, perfect experience that is standardized for everyone. Just like movies on film-every showing is a unique event that requires people in the audience, a skilled projectionist, etc. If there's considered no difference between paintings and photos, why go to an art gallery at all? If there's considered no difference between viewing film and watching the digital movie on your cell phone, why go to the movies at all? Isn't this a massive mistake?