Response to Nick's Q

Q:. Notably, the debate over which is the "real" Virgin on the Rocks painting is mentioned. If you were told that a work of art you'd always admired and thought was real was actually a copy, what would that change for you?

A: At first, I would be dismayed. My disappointment that the art was a copy would be followed by my justification that people should admire art for art's sake (Peter Ruskin). The awe of viewing a work of art created by a well-known artist is not as important as developing my own interpretation and extracting imaginative meaning from the work of art itself. I think that people hype up the importance of viewing the original version of a painting. Some things are better left unsaid. The only difference between a copy and original is what one comes to conclude in his or her mind. That is, one may automatically think that a copy is less valuable than the original. But if the viewer didn't know whether the painting was authentic to begin with, there would be no preconceived notion that this artwork is not of the best quality. The quality of a painting is relative to past comparisons that one has mentally imprinted in his or her head.