"Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership. The traces of the first can be revealed only by chemical or physical analyses which it is impossible to perform on a reproduction; changes of ownership are subject to a tradition which must be traced from the situation of the original" (paragraph 11).
The aforementioned quote argues that art which are reproduced lack its essence of time. It significance to the period in which the art was done is lacking, there are no connections between the art and its time period. Therefore, viewers can't relate to the essence or importance of such art work during in which is was done. The history of the art has been erased.
I choose this quote because it has some fallacies. Art normally tells a story, well the ones that I have seen. They normally depicts a time in which something vast was happening, whether it be throughout the great depression or during the world wars. Arts are often redone and retouched but I still think its significance and importance remains and last throughout time. Whether, they are reproduced or retouch there are still something in the art that tells the story of the time in which the original was done.
