Must we look at a painting in order to be able to understand it?

Question: Many of us rely on book reproductions which, however fine, distort the colour and scale of the painting in question. Also detail is often blurred and texture non exstent.

Answer: Yes we must look at the painting. I have found out from personal experience, even with paintings that I did not expect them to have anything more in the original than the reproductions. I saw paintings by Malevich that are very simple and one would say that they look perfect in photographs. However, it is very different when you see the real thing, and it doesn't have anything to do with the aura of the thing, with your idea that you are in front of the original; it just looks different. Maybe it depends on the painting, for some it is the exact size, for others it is the texture, but it is always different, and the strange thing is that the more abstract and simple in form is the painting the greater the difference. But most of us can't see everything so we have to make do with books. But you need to see at least some so that you are conscious of the difference.

Related Questions

Related Items