Paintings are not really 2d objects. There are some details that are easier to see with a very high res digital capture, but other things go missing (and accurate color reproduction is hard).

In particular, there are lots of light effects that can't be captured in a 2D grid of pixels.

> According to your viewpoint: if it's a copy then why spend money going there, when you can have high resolution, fully immersive digital museums?

There are some socialization reasons, but for the art it would be a good example... if such a thing existed. Screens and headsets aren't there yet.

So people trying to get the best visual experience isn't yet proof of the value of the other aspects.

As I understand, the fakes were not copies of an existing picture but rather an independent work by unknown painter.