Stealing the beauty of art by photographing it? If the photography does not physically damage the art, then why is it wrong? Is this another case of an elite trying to keep a rein on how people appreciate art? Personally, I think photographing or reproducing art in some way is a good thing, because it allows more people to see and reach their own idea and interpetation of art than there would be if it was kept in a museum. It brings art to the masses, and allows them to appreciate it on their own, without some authority telling them how it should be viewed. Which is the exact opposite of what too many art historians and scholars think should happen.