I wonder how viewing art in person versus  looking at a copy in a book or online affects your perception of the work? I find that more often than not when I see a work of art up close and personal I usually come away with a positive opinion of the work having seen the size , perspective and all those other small but distinct variables that an in person viewing allows.  And when we express an opinion of art should we qualify our opinions, critiques or outright bashing with the note  that our opinion is based on a facsimile and not the original viewing?

Excellent question.

I have to agree.  When I saw Turner's "Slave Ship" in a book, I was moved.  When I first saw it in person, I started weeping.

i agree with everyone on this. many things can get lost in between and the meaning could get be lost on the viewer. a great work of art can make you feel that you are nowhere and that you belong to nothing as it leads you into its greater purpose. then its alive. and you are part of its world. sometimes i feel a disorientated and lost after i disengage from the painting. a book just doesnt have the same vibe.

I am in total agreement with you Mat.....the last sentence was very eloquent.

As a kid I would see photos of paintings in books or magazines but when I went to the art institue for the first time I was toally blown away. You see the texture of the paint, you see the detail and it takes the work to a whole new level. I even get amazed when I see my work when it is finally printed.

Yeah...there's no comparison at all. Seeing art first hand is a much better experience. That applies to all kinds of things. Especially galleries and museums. Seeing a mummies bones and sarchophagus online is cool...but seeing it in person amps up your perception a million times!  Same with seeing an epic movie.....at home on a TV is one thing...but in a theater with  the hugescreen,surround sound and even the overpriced theater snacks make it an experience. I'm appreciative of the internet and books though ....without them we would not ever see many of the great pieces of art we do.

Mark

Besides a lot of the mentioned better "live" experiences of original artworks (like texture and color), there is also the question of SIZE.  Even if described and listed, the size of the original piece (compared to its photographic reproduction) hugely contributes to the viewer-artwork dialogue.  After a few years of college art history courses, I finally made it to Paris for a year of study.  I will NEVER forget my first visit to the Louvre and my first vision of Gericault's RAFT OF THE MEDUSA... unexpectedly ENORMOUS (like many of the neo-classical paintings in that corridor)!  After seeing its reproductions over and over in books, standing in front of the academic masterpiece was a revelation... "WOW!  So that's what everybody has been talking about!  I 'get' it."  I don't think I've been the same since.  I was no longer a virgin.  Ha!

On the other hand, in the same museum, I experienced da Vinci's MONA LISA.  In terms of size, I was STUNNED how SMALL this iconic portrait was!  It was a completely different reality than my imaginary expectation (whatever that was - but BIGGER)... another revelation.  It is so difficult to understand and appreciate the actual dimensions of original art until it is viewed in person.  Expectation and reality aren't even close to the same thing.  And no matter what you hear (in photographic reproductions), SIZE MATTERS.  Ha, again!

There is no comparison.

I think this is one of the things digital artists must overcome, unfortunately. Even with the best of prints, viewed in real life is not that different that viewing on a computer. There's no tactile experience to add to what we already know. There's no third dimension to discover. Even sizes are limited for most digital artists.

I still think digital will find it's place, it's just going to have to insist on that place much as photography did.

I think being able to see a photograph online "as is" is an advantage....at least from a sellers point of view. The customer can see and know exactly what they are getting. I do agree that almost all art looks better in it's original (in most cases larger) size though. A photo looks just as beautiful online as it does in person (unless it has been reduced to a really small pixel size as I will explain below).

Digital painting is the troubling part for me. Is a painting that's done with "paint software" and has no actual paint, texture or brush marks etc....considered a painting...or a print? I've seen it described both ways. Some artsits are so great at using software that it actually looks (on a computer screen) like there are brush stokes and depth. I would purchase either if I loved the piece...but I would want to know if it was actual paint or digital paint.

As for critiquing a piece of art online..I think it is harder to judge when just seen on a computer screen....but I also think that a person makes up their mind within a few seconds whether they like something or not regardless of whether it is online or in person. They may find they like it even more when they see it in person...and I guess sometimes they may like it less, but the overall look of the photo is what attracts them to it.  I'm not a fan of thick,heavy paint....but I love a nice texture and to see and feel the brush strokes. That would be hard to discern online.

I have noticed with my photos...they tend to get blurry when I downsize them for use on the internet. I don't like how they look in a smaller pixel size...but I'm not sure it makes a big difference. I always tell people that the print they get will be sharper in most cases than what they see online. Same photo...just a little better quality in person.

Mark

In regards to digital painting and texture, I feel this medium is just getting off the ground, and may one day replace the paintbrush and canvas as the medium of choice. We have digital tablets that allow artist to define the us to pen pressure sensativity to 2048 levels, currently.

We also have the technologies to dimensionalized images into real 3d models. Marrying the two, and adding simple paint is not that much of a leap in technology. (Maybe we need to start an R&D project ont this.) I also know that vectoring, or using similar enlargement capabilities, makes sizing a moot point.

Lastly, we are continually setting new memory and storage threshold into smaller and smaller packages. So, don't give up on thinking that the digital medium is limited, I think just the opposite is true.

And, just for fun:

1 Brontobyte = 1000 Yottabytes 1 Yottabyte = 1000 Zettabytes 1 Zettabyte = 1000 Exabytes 1 Exabyte = 1000 Petabytes 1 Petabyte = 1000 Terabytes 1 Terabyte = 1000 Gigabytes 1 Gigabyte = 1000 Megabytes 1 Megabyte = 1000 Kilobytes 1 Kilobyte = 1000 Bytes