I don't think that's really the same thing. The Mona Lisa was painted directly by the creator's hand and there is value in maintaining the physical structure of the painting because there is something there beyond a physical image.

In a video the media - the original film - is already just a copy of the original performance. Unless you are interested in the history of the physical media for it's own sake because it's unusual in some way I don't think it's the same thing. Is the media even the original negative that was in the studio? I don't think so.

The value of the Mona Lisa is in the physical object. The value of the broadcast archives is the information they store. So storing the archived in a different format makes them more valuable, but storing the Mona Lisa in a new format removes the only thing giving it value.

Well, ask the same question about a mediocre portrait picturing someone of no [recorded/remembered] societal note by an artist no-one knows anything else about and I'd say "absolutely". Take pictures, make them available to the public, give the original away - use the remaining 99% of the upkeep costs for something else.

When a robot/printer is able to make a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa down to the brush strokes, and we can experience it in VR without even needing the replica, the answer to your question might change for most works too.

High-res scans of sculptures are already a thing [0]. Just send the polygon mesh to a 3d printing and presto, you get your own David by Michelangelo. However, painting would be waay more difficult, especially in cases (such as Van Gogh) where the artist deliberately applies thick layers of paint.

(I find the idea of intentionally destroying the originals to be ludicrous, but hey, more future-proofing is always good)

[0]: http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/dmich-sig00/

Polygon printed plastic is nothing like chiselled marble, and that's going to be super hard to replicate because of the random variability.

What is it about original artwork that makes it so important as to need eternal preservation?

> What is it about original artwork that makes it so important as to need eternal preservation?

In David's case, maybe the fact that Michelangelo was able to carve it out of a fragile and partially sculpted block that at least two other great artists refused to use. It's an engineering feat at least as much as an artistic one.

The equipment to "play" original paintings is ubiquitous, i.e. eyeballs.

> shred the damn thing

If we did that, what would we have lost? Just curious...