Harsh lighting shows all the blemishes. This is a bad thing for art that is photographed or scanned. High-resolution kills the soft retinal distortions of the human eye.
Photographed art, even with the best cameras and lighting, highlights things you wouldn't see standing next to a painting in a meticulously-lighted gallery space.
The best lighting is diffuse natural light with a lower light temperature, and preferably not back-lit, which is a completely different experience of images that have texture.
With photographed artworks you need a form of "age reduction" which takes the natural "bump map" aspects out of a digital image. We see the same texture with our eyes but it looks like normal texture, as opposed to the high-contrast pixelated shadow that can appear in a digital photo.
Screen images naturally look more craggy and have to be smoothed in some way. Nixon was a victim of this in the 1960 debate with Kennedy. Kennedy had the advantage of being younger and less prone to the "bump map" effect, i.e. the flaws in unnatural light to make blemishes more visible. If there were no screens in 1960, perhaps the outcome would have been different simply because of the softness of natural vision. Perhaps there would have been no Watergate--who knows.