One line that really stood out to me was "The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe". This affects are to a great deal. The article gave the example that fire in the Middle Ages probably meant something different to what fire means to us today. Art is the same way. The things that people saw and experienced in the past are drastically different than what we know today. For example, in the 15th century Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper probably had a very different meaning. Maybe at that time people were more or less religious. There are many factors. This also makes art very unique. Every person has seen different things in their lifetime, so everyone gets a different message out of a painting or drawing. This makes art timeless.
It never occurred to me that the camera had such a strong influence on art, particularly paintings. In the past, a painting in a building often captured the atmosphere and represented the individuality of the building. Having a beautiful painting made a person very proud. The reason for this is that there was only one of the painting. The only place that piece of art could be seen was in that building. The camera changed this forever. The camera was able to capture an image and reproduce it. This allows the image to be seen by everyone and everywhere. The uniqueness of that painting and the building is gone, "Because of the camera, the painting now travels to the spectator rather than the spectator to the painting". The invention of the camera allowed the works of artists to be seen by many more people which is good, but it also diminished how much people appreciate art because it can be found so easily.