ABSTRACT
The role that reproduction has played in the history of Western art since the Renaissance has been significant, even if it has often been only occasionally and imperfectly acknowledged. One reason for its neglect may be the common-sense perception that reproductions are by their very nature inferior products. To take only the case of paintings for the moment, it is clear that, however careful the photographer and printer may have been, significant differences between original and reproduction subtly transform the viewer’s experience of an image. The list—familiar to professionals—could be extended. Ironically it is itself a tribute to the ubiquity of reproduction in modern forms of art history, curatorship and commercial dealing. Any account of the power of reproduction to shape the reception and history of art would ideally include some consideration too of the way in which damaged or lost works continued to make their presence felt.
