Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jayski 1650 days ago
in the exact case of the mona lisa, anyone could tell the difference because the real thing has noticeable texture and yours would just be a poster.

maybe a better analogy would be a famous photograph like the rhein 2

2 comments

I mean you are right, but that texture is doing a lot of work, since the Mona Lisa is about $850 million, and my solution is $0.0001 million, and indistinguishable at 15 meters.

But either way, this doesn't distract from the main thrust of my point. Art is expensive for Money reasons, not art reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ3F3zWiEmc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5sOuET8UWA

yeah I agree, theres a lot of speculation in the art market.
You can buy replicas that reproduce the paint texture

https://www.designtoscano.com/products/mona-lisa-classic-art...