The cold logic of a 2004 article, entitled PICTURE OF PRIVILEGE, that Charles Murray wrote in The Wall Street Journal is irrefutable. His proposal: why not use our superior technology to exactly reproduce the works of the great painters so that anyone can enjoy them? After all, as Mr. Murray says correctly, "the magic of the historical object is purely in our heads, and has nothing to do with the 'thing itself' of artistic power." Yet as I read on I felt repelled without at first knowing why.

     So I asked my wife, who is a portrait and landscape painter, to read Mr. Murray's article. How would a painter feel if his or her work were Mass reproduced not as a print or a photograph, but precisely on canvas with all brush strokes intact, indistinguishable from the original? She was outraged at the idea. "My painting," she said, "is the true thing, and any reproduction would be a fake." That her "true thing" is unique, has value, signals respect for her as an artist. She went on to explain that duplicates of an object cheapen it, that a Van Gogh painting or the Mona Lisa in a prosaic context, rather than being elevated, is demeaned. In other words, that an object is the only one of its kind in the world, something truly special, gives it value which is, without question, "purely in our heads." Contrary to Mr. Murray's thesis, what's "purely in our heads" does matter and matters more than reducing it to commonality so that all have access to viewing it at any time.

Indeed, what's in our heads, by establishing worth, is at the root of all human economies. It's also at the root of our culture. Music may be listened to by the masses, but even here the audience for a particular work is quite limited. No recording can replicate the ambiance, purity of sound and emotions generated by a single concert performance. Books may also be read by the masses, but few endure long enough to acquire a first edition cachet. Our culture seeks to achieve a commonality, and in many cases a mediocrity, through mass production.

The mindset that would have great art Mass Produced for all to enjoy is obviously democratic, based on the concept that each of us has an equal opportunity to realize our potential. But the fact is we are not created equal; we are created differently, each of us equipped with unique talents. To "commonize" our art is tantamount to equalizing us as human beings. To create and preserve the specialness of an artistic work follows a principle that would also preserve our Individual Specialness as persons. And it is our individual specialness that makes us valuable not only to those who love us but to all the world.

Since we live in a mass producing world, in order to retain our individuality we must not allow such a mentality of logic as expressed by Mr. Murray to invade our lives. There's a place for mass produced things: automobiles, computers etc. We must respect and not compromise things that are intended to be one of a kind. That we may be deprived of works of art that are in a private collection is unfortunate. One hopes in time they will appear in museums for us all to see. But it is a price worth paying. What is "purely in our heads" is more precious than leveling things to the intrinsic ordinary.