I used to think of Michelangelo’s David as kind of a cheeseball Art 101 thing. It had become so familiar through reproductions and pop culture that it almost had the quality of a refrigerator magnet. When G and I were in Italy, I didn’t even particularly want to wait in line to see it.
Then I saw it and it completely blew me away.
The opposite happened with Robert Frank. I love The Americans, and the Art Institute has original gelatin silver prints from it. Seeing those was exciting because they were the actual objects, but they didn’t really tell me anything I didn’t already know from reproductions, but it was the proximity to the artifact that was “neat.” Wow, he made this print in his darkroom. Cool.”
That seems useful to think about with an archive. Sometimes the physical object contains something the reproduction simply cannot give you. Other times, what you are experiencing is mostly the novelty of the artifact.
Maybe the question is not whether every original needs to survive, but what the original still knows that the reproduction doesn’t.
This comes out of the idea of a physical collective DIY place to house physical artifacts for DIY artists. It’s a great concept, but ludicrous when you think about it. Where would it go? Kansas? Seems right. In the middle of the country so everyone has to drive forever to see it, except for those who live in Kansas. Maybe it’s like an Air B&B. One in every town. Also problematic. So, how important really is the physical object?