With the world that we live in we are constantly surrounded by images – magazines, posters, even on the sides of buses – but is looking at an image of something the same as seeing the object itself?
Consider a half page advert in a newspaper advertising stake; does seeing the picture of the stake have the same effect on you as if there were an actual piece of meat in front of you? Probably not. I mean, although the photograph is well composed and lit and looks almost good enough to eat; it’s only pleasing to your eyes.
Real stake would have a mouth-watering smell, and you’d hear it sizzling as its being cooked. You’d be able to feel the heat coming from it when it’s presented to you and all of this is without even tasting it.
So why does any of this matter? Why am I suddenly writing about food on my art-y blog? No, I’m not trying to sell you meat (although it could work, anyone else craving a big juicy stake right now?). I’m trying to make a point. Does having the real thing matter? In some cases, definitely- paper food is not as good as real food. But what about art?
Do you have to see the real masterpiece or is looking at things digitally enough now? Is it still worth going to a gallery to see a portrait that you could look up online?
Over the next few posts, I’m going to be exploring these questions and hopefully coming up with a few answers too. I’d love to hear what you think about this – leave your comments below and it might inspire a blog post all of its own.
And now I’m off to find some delicious real food.