cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/questions/p/1261259/if-you-could-create-artistic-works-like-the-mona-lisa-gioconda-in-better-quality-should
I feel like I’ve been thinking about this too much in the last few days.
If you could recreate every drawing in history digitally or in better quality overall, wouldn’t your work be considered superior?
Why the hell isn’t there a nonprofit project that does this already?
Define “better quality”
Mainly, better details, colors and digitalization of the art.
I wouldn’t call that better “quality”, I’d call it greater detail. More colours doesn’t automatically equal better and the same is true for details or digitilization
That description doesn’t apply to art.
Assuming you mean better than the original, this makes no sense. It seems like you are trying to apply criteria that apply to something that is a capture of the real world, like a photograph or recording, where what is captured is limited by simple quantitative factors like numbers of pixels and shades of color, and light levels.
Art like the Mona Lisa is not a simple snapshot of some real original, and that same criteria does not apply. It is valued for the art and nuances in the use of the media, and its affect on the viewer, not for some objective closeness to some real world original. If you made a version of the Mona Lisa that was more like a photograph of Leonardo’s model, it would be considered worse, not better.