In my opinion, a major reason why the work of art can draw the public’s attention is that it’s limited, especially for those only has one version, chances are that people will value it very much.
Walter discussed about the effects of mechanical reproduction to the work of art, to some degree, while technology makes them reproducible, the authenticity of most of the art works decreases.
I think every piece of art work contains certain emotion or culture, and they are unique and irreplaceable. Printing makes a lot of cheap and similar copies of art works available, and then many people are less likely to spend time and money to treat the original one seriously. As a result, mass reproduction of art works decreses their exhibition value.
As for the copies, they are simply the work of machine, no emotional struggling or time-consuming. On the contrary, for the authentic ones, those artists spent days and nights thinking and drawing to make works eventually come out to the world. They put their countless intellectual efforts and life time in them. The works are the simple of their ambition and life experiences. Besides, the works can be the reflection of that period. Mechanical reproduction provide easier access to those works. But the easier for people to see and touch the works, the more likely for them to ignore their initial purpose for knowing the works. It would be meaningless if a person has a copy of work but feels nothing beyond it.
The original art works deserve our respect no matter how many copies have been made based on them. Even though they look nearly the same outside, they are largely different from inside. I suggest there should be clear principles for what kind of art works are reproducible and a limitation on maximum amount of copies.
Amazing art works deserve to be cherished and appreciated by the people who understand them, rather than to be mass reproduced in purpose of money.