New York Times Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/arts/design/06armory.html?ref=arts

I thought that this piece was interesting because it details an attempt by one individual to "modernize" a classic work of art, Leonardo Da Vinci's "Last Supper." This speaks to the tension inherent in classic art's place in modern society: do this pieces still speak to us as they did hundreds of years ago? Can an ancient or classic work of art still be relevant to today's society? Similarly, does the "modern", special effects, video, lighting magic, have a place in these classic works? The New York Times reviewer in this piece doesn't seem to think so, classifying British filmmaker Peter Greenaway's re-invention of De Vinci's famous piece as "a dud." However, he acknowledges that, "digital reproduction and video recording of art can be valuable, letting us see things we would otherwise never see." The reviewer then mentions a case of a valuable historical piece that would be subject to too much light and moisture damage if it were made available to the public. But, with the help of modern technology, the work could be re-created and thus made accessible to the public. It seems, then, that technology does have a place in classic art, even if it is only to play a supporting role.