In Museum Without Walls,' Andre Malraux wrote of the way in which photography has transformed our knowledge of art. ready availability of photographic reproductions means that we are no longer limited to what we can see in local museums, what we can garner from hand drawn reproductions, or what we can remember from our travels. Photographs bring to us the art of the world. Through them, we can become familiar with art in public and private collections all over the globe. And photography, by allowing us to bring together the images of artworks in diverse collections, has also transformed our knowledge by facilitating comparison and analysis. Through photographs, we can compare a painting in the Louvre with one in the Prado, or we can survey the entire oeuvre of a particular artist. According to Malraux, this expanded knowledge and range of comparison has facilitated the reevaluation of different artists and periods of art, and has enlarged our notion of artistic value. He points out that the isolated work of a relatively unknown style will not be appreciated. Photographs, by making possible a familiarity with the whole output of an artist or period can remedy this situation, by allowing us to judge works on their own terms. While Malraux argues that our knowledge of art and our notion of artistic value have been expanded by photography, Walter Benjamin argues that the nature of artistic value has been fundamentally changed. In The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Benjamin claims that in the face of photographic reproduction, the original artwork can no longer retain the special value and authority it traditionally possessed.2 According to Benjamin, photography makes available to all artworks the mechanical reproduction which was formerly only available to such objects as cast bronzes and woodcuts. photograph reproduces everything but the original's presence in space and time, its history. original's continued value thus depends on the continued importance of its presence, but it is precisely this importance which is undermined by the widespread acceptance of reproductions. Unlike the original, the reproduction can be brought wherever the viewer is, and it is accepted as a suitable replacement. remote unique object with a specific history is replaced by a multipliable image which can be distributed and possessed, which is no longer confined to a particular context. original's unique history is depreciated and its special value and authority, its aura, is destroyed. John Berger, in Ways of Seeing, echoes Benjamin's argument and adds that in the age of photographic reproduction the value of the original artwork-so important for the art market and for the social hierarchies it serves-can only be explained by its rarity.3 monetary value of the original can no longer be tied to the uniqueness of its image, and hence, can no longer be tied to the uniqueness of its meaning. Still, we have a need to justify this monetary value as arising from some qualitative difference between the original and its replicas. This need gives rise to what Berger calls a bogus religiosity. artwork becomes impressive, mysterious, because of its market value. 14The monetary value of the original causes the spectator to imagine that the original gives rise to a unique experience. Each of the above thinkers focuses on the reproducible images of artworks to the neglect of art's non-reproducible properties. And even when the non-reproducible properties are given token acknowledgment, they are not considered essential to our knowledge and understanding of