Nic Mooney: Originality and Reproduction

We digest reproductions very differently than we see other art. If somebody is trying to make a faithful reproduction of, say, the Mona Lisa, one does not wonder about the landscape or the meaning of her smile or her pose so much as one focuses on the brushwork, technical aspects, and subtle changes. A reproduction has a way of focusing the emphasis on just a few parts of the work, because meaning is not drawn from the entire work but rather the small, changed details. In Rubens' copy of Titian's work, original sin is boiled down to the differences in pose and color. Reproduction gives an artist the ability to focus his or her audience's attention.
However, this focus can also be negative. When imitation is used incorrectly or without skill, it arouses criticism. The article made me think about reproduction and artificiality in architecture, particularly concerning the criticism that has always swirled around classical and neoclassical architecture in the modern and contemporary eras. Whether in the form of McMansions with faux-French chateau decorations in the middle of the Los Angeles suburbs, or skyscrapers that feature columns and Greek designs in the facade, each has a certain falseness about them because they have no connection to their era, their location, or methods of construction. Imitation can be meaningful, as in the subtle changes Peter Paul Rubens made to Adam's expression, or it can be cheap, like in this assembly-line replica of French architecture, tailored to the suburbs.