Keep in mind that when you buy an NFT, you aren't getting your museum experience. You're still looking at a reproduction of those bits on a computer monitor. None of these NFTs are actually allowing you to view the original work the same way that you would be able to with a painting in a museum.

Not only are there no physical differences (the bits transmitted from Google images and from the NFT link are physically the same) -- there's also not a real metaphyiscal or conceptual difference, because the bits being transmitted when you look at an NFT's link are not original and have no inherent link to the original, they're copies, just like you would get transmitted from any other link.

It's more like going to a museum and buying a special ticket to see the Mona Lisa, but instead of actually seeing the original Mono Lisa in all its glory, you instead go into a separate room where you sit down at a laptop and still look at a JPEG of the Mona Lisa.

It's like the difference between seeing a video of a person and meeting that person.

Oh, that's excellent. Yes, it's very much like that!

Just curious, would one of the newer HDR formats/displays, with their more accurate color space and brightness, have helped?

Not for me. Paintings are so much more the just images. They are physical objects in dialog with space and culture. This generates a tremendous amount of context that cannot be captured in a photograph.

In other words, no camera will ever capture the experience of walking into LACMA and seeing a Rauschenberg or a Picasso in person, walking up to the painting to look closely, stepping back to see it in the context of the space, reflecting on it's relationship to other paintings on the floor, etc.

No. Paintings are three dimensional objects, that take up a certain part of your field of view, that reflect and interact with light in a certain way, that have real, physical texture.

What about VR/AR? Its not like you're allowed to touch the painting (which you cannot do in VR/AR either).

its not just that they are physical objects. They are physical objects in a physical space in which you are a part. Yes you can "walk around" in VR but that isn't remotely the same as walking around in real life.

Beyond that, there is so much context--physical, cultural, and intellectual--going on when you walk into a gallery and look at art. You lose all of that when looking at digital slides, no matter the quality.

how about with the Mona Lisa, which is protected behind thick glass with a barricade preventing anyone from getting close.

Would you rather see the real painting or a high res rendition?

https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/488167591/9...

The Mona Lisa is probably the worst example. The Louve is full of thousands of other masterworks you can view up close without horrible crowds.

I thought it was a good example - a famous painting that millions go to see in person, but it's displayed in such a way that nearly all of the physical attributes you mentioned aren't there.

Would they be better served by a high resolution rendition?

Would they? There are high resolution scans of this (imo, mediocre and boring) piece online, yet millions travel around the planet and wait in queue for hours to be in the same room with it. The massive security around the piece is arguably part if the context and history of the painting (which greatly increased in fame following its theft.)

No, it wouldn't. No matter how good, it's still just an image. What I learned is that there's a lot more to a painting than just the image.