Is it essential to see a painting in the flesh?

My tutor passed me an interesting link as part of my assignmnet feedback for A3, a debate on whether it is essential to see a painting ‘in the flesh’?

Both sides are well argued. I found it ineresting that it was the painter who was arguing for yes and the poet arguing for no, he was arguing that the painting is an accessory for the description which i thought was an interesting point because when you’re pushed for time you do read the caption blurb to cheat a bit and see if it describes how you’re supposed to interpret the work. Ultimately though he was still arguing that it added something extra to see it, but i got from his argument you need to see it but you also need to read about it first to see it in a context, whereas the first arguemnt was more along the lines of you only need to see it.

At the bottom of the piece is a poll, I voted yes and apparently so did most other people.






Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s