On Thurs., our class got into a discussion on repetition. We focused on the question, "If a certain piece of work is repeated, or seen repeatedly, does it make the effect less important?" John brought up the example of the twin tower's collapse. For many of us, we were exposed to the graphic image of the planes crashing into the towers, people running, debris falling from the sky, etc., not only once, but multiple times, as the news flooded the media. For each time we view this horrific tragedy, does it make it a little less shocking each time, or does it have the full-blown impact every time? I know each person is different, so we cannot expect that each person would have the same reaction, but this is an interesting behavior to observe and ponder on. On a similar note, we also questioned if art would have the same impact if it was advertised multiple times in commercial products. John questioned our class, "If you found an image you thought was art, reproduced millions of times, is it still considered art?" This is a question we face each time we witness famous pieces of artwork reproduced on socks, shirts, etc. Reprinting art pieces on miscellaneous items makes it possible for people across the world to get a glimpse of these famous pieces without having to spend hundreds of dollars to travel to a museum. With these multiple prints, each one of us can bring a little Monet into our homes. However, on the flip side, art is a valued profession, and the works of Picasso, Monet, and Van Gogh are all we have left to remember these great artists by. To shamelessly make copies and unlimited prints of their works is in a sense mocking the artist's talent and takes away from the awesome experience of seeing firsthand, the original, and I do mean ORIGINAL, art. There is nothing like the experience of seeing a great artist's masterpiece before your own eyes. This is something to consider if you are thinking of forking out $50 to get a Picasso tatoo.