That's an interesting question and an interesting example...
Given the conditions which La Gioconda is neccesarily displayed under these days (in a climate controlled environment behind bullet proof glass with impatient crowds shuffling past behind a barrier well out of touching range) I'd have to say that the level of contemplation and interaction allowed is such that a bit of quality time up close and personal with a really good reproduction (or a virtual encounter of the quality which a few hundred years of technological progress would lead me to expect) is probably a rather more meaningful and satisfying experience.
I've seen the original and found the experience utterly lacking, if I'd been allowed to get as close and linger for as long as I managed and enjoyed with "lesser" Leonardo's at the National Gallery last year (and that was a somewhat frustrating, sub-optimal experience...) it might (in fact I sincerely believe it would!) have been very different, but as it was, beyond being able to metaphorically tick the "seen the Mona Lisa" box it didn't really do much for me. We might be able to do better in 500 years but while there's only one precious, delicate original and millions of people who'd like to experience it there's always going to be a problem and if the technology (replicator, VR, or telepresence) is good enough then an expensive, time consuming trip to Paris might not have anything like the appeal it does now...
]]>How good does telepresence and/or immersive virtual reality need to be before that argument falls over?
]]>