Comment by dylan604
5 days ago
As these are prints themselves, are we gaining anything by seeing these prints vs other prints? It's not like viewing an original Monet or anything where the thing being viewed was the work created by the artist's hands. While these prints might have been made by the artist, they are still not the originals.
When visiting DC, do we really think the Constitution under all of that glass is the actual Constitution? POTUS seems to think he has the actual, so there's conflict right there. For a document as beloved as the Constitution, why would you ever risk the original?
>When visiting DC, do we really think the Constitution under all of that glass is the actual Constitution?
That's a damn good question actually, and for many other works in other places, like, say, the Magna Carta, or the Declaration of Independence. To the Wikipediamobile ADHDMan!
Why do you think Wikipedia wouldn't be lying about the same thing?
I can't be sure, no, but I can't think of a single reason why they would lie about something so banal as whether the displayed "originals" are really that. In any case, they do provide their sources.
For example, if you go to the Wikipedia page on the Taj Mahal, they plainly explain that the tombs that tourists see daily, of the Mughal emperor and his wife, aren't the real tombs. Those are down in the basement, below the fake ones.