Has fine art been 'dumbed down' due to reproduction?

I had a question about this not long ago. I think it does in a way - its boring and repetetive when you see the same pieces all over the internet, magazines and in the streets. The freshness and true qualities of the original are lost by its cheap reproduction, so you are numbed to it's real meaning and value. I think you can only really appreciate an art-work and understand the artists feelings and intentions when you experience it first-hand.

However, it's important to get the message of art to many different people, so they all have the chance to see and understand it for themselves. I find it really inspiring to see paintings and other bits of art in my daily life, particularly in places where they're unexpected. Maybe art shouldn't be viewable only in galleries.

Good question : )

I get what you're sayin', and I think, to an extent, it has. Those with a natural born talent for specific or various art forms can still create a masterpiece from nothing. But I think because there's so many fads these days, that art often times becomes one. If somebody with no natural capabilities wants to paint, they take a Painting 101 class and learn the basics to create somethin' that may or may not look like it took the same effort that a dedicated artist would put into it.

That's not to say that every single person shouldn't have the opportunity to partake in any artist activity they have an interest in, and sometimes people with 0 experience can experiment and come up with something just as beautiful and/or inspiring as somebody that's a veteran at that particular medium... I jus' think it can get frustrating for people who have done what they do for a long time to see "newbies" create something similar with newer techniques or "dumbed down" methods.

No, in the 60s and 70s you had to go to museums, not always available, or find heavy tomes in libraries, and prints often took some finding. Now much more art is available, and is seen. Although some pics are overdone, you don't see the same couple of prints ie:- ' boy crying' (a 'fire' urban myth surrounded this picture, it was even featured on 'That's Life'). Another terrible one was of a 'Malaysian woman'.

I have 2 Dali re pros on my walls.

Art has been given a boost by this proliferation.

Also people who are artists or photographers (particularly those who have used a darkroom, and 'timers' on cameras,) make better use of 'photo shop' etc than people who aren't.

The craftmanship of the original can never be "dumbed down" by reproduction. In fact, that's the reason that reproduction prints are so popular. My own walls are decorated with several Van Gough prints, and, I consider myslelf to be a pretty fair artist.

I side with those that appreciate that the world's best art is accessible to the masses. How else would I be able to see the works of South American, Asian and African artists? The world is a cosmopolitan place and the technology is what makes us be able to share in each other's culture.

You could say that fine art has been dumbed down, but it lends to the question, what exactly is fine art, and who decides which piece is worthy of this tag?

I think it is a totally personal belief. Either you like the piece or you dont. Frankly, I have seen pieces of art that have sold for millions and millions of dollars that I thought...man! That is really crap! Im sure my 6 year old could do better brush strokes etc....but then I have seen some common "cheap" pieces that seriously stirred feelings within..now these pieces may have seemed crap to the person who bought the art for millions of dollars!

I think that there needs to be less snobbery around art..(not you by any means, just in general), and more acceptance that people will buy what they find appeals to them.

I believe it's the viewer that's been dumbed-down - at least in North America, where education in fine art and art history is optional and not part of the basic school curriculum. This act of omission leaves us with a nation of people who are, to a great extent, unable to understand art or even recognize it when they see it.

We have educated our children to believe that art in any form (classic music, dance & literary styles, poetry as well as fine art) is not aimed at the common person but is intended only for highbrows and snobs. This leads the general public toward the consumption of "affordable art" simply because it's within their realm of understanding.

It's not just about beauty, art is a statement about our culture. Look through history books and you see cultural eras represented by art... what is the statement made by the 21st century?

If we look at Modern conceptual fine art, the idea remains paramount, not the realization, reproduction etc. In this sense, authenticity takes a back seat. Why should art be the reserve of those with money or ACCESS to elite thinking, production?

NO!

The visual arts have been progressively relocated to the digital arena.

This is a wonderful thing for myself, a digital artist. I don't use a canvas. I draw what my mind says, just like all of you all, then I can animate my drawings quickly and easily.

I want to point out a way that all artists can get ahead in this world, using their own skills. Learn how to use photoshop (one book, or one class - the same thing). Then, learn how to use After Effects (several classes, or one book). If you are a great artist you can seriously rule a significant portion of animated media if you learn how to use After Effects.

Hate my words or not, technology is replacing hours behind the brush with minutes behind the mouse.

Fight it and fail. Abuse it and succeed.

Fine Art hasn't been, but I suspect that judgement might have been.