Art. A conundrum.

[Tawn]

---[I dont want to let this discussion enter the religious realm, but I would like people to be aware at the back of their minds that this discussion does bear some relevance to peoples belief in the supernatural. Arguably this might strengthen a position of belief in the supernatural, depending on where your stance lies - so dont see this as an attack on faith..]---

Imagine if you will a piece of art. Lets say for argument its the mona lisa. Its artistic value isnt in the materials which make it up, but instead the skill, time invested, the artists ideas that went into its creation.

Now fast forward to some high-tech future where we can manipulate the very position of atoms in an object. (Think replicators from star trek).

Now lets say its possible to create an EXACT replica of the mona lisa. When I say exact - I dont mean a copy - I mean atomically perfect. Physically in every way exactly like the original.

One might be inclined to think that the original is still 'the original' and the other - simply a copy, a fake. Yet are they?

The 'original' possesses these qualities because we know of the effort, creativity and skill that went into its creation. However, these things are not physically evident.

Where are we if someone switches the 'original' and the 'copy'? There is no way to tell them apart!

What happens if somehow in the future we have forgotton all about the events surrounding the creation of the painting? Have those 'special qualities' the painting possessed been lost?

What if we never were aware that a copy had been made? We might be admiring the copy - thinking it to be the original and we'd never realise.

--
Lets use another example.. say I possess an item of clothing that has been worn by a famous person. Does that item possess some special quality? Nothing has physically changed in the item since before it was worn and it was just like any other identical piece of clothing in the shop. It isnt really different afterwards - yet some people will assign a 'value' to the item because of its history.

Again, what if im lying. What if the item hant really been worn by that famous person. Would a fan know - would they care if they found out? Would they enter a state of denial, not wishing to believe they had been duped?

--
So whats going on here???

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

hmmmm, this is kind of like, "one man's trash is another man's treasure".

I think we have all been conditioned to this "comparitive attitude". "Keeping up with the Jones's" and the false competitiveness that we have been taught to believe in.

Why is one person paid millions of dollars a year to play a game like football, but a teacher, who is charge of our children (our most valuable asset) are paid peanuts, and barely make it from paycheck to paycheck. Why is one persons 8 hours worth more than someone else's 8 hours.

There should be no value based on preferences. There should be equal value. A bathing suit should cost whatever it cost to make it, plus a set amount to profit the one who made it.

The overspending for material things is really disgusting to me. Trying to understand why someone would pay hundreds of dollars for a pair of shoes makes me nutty.

 

[michel]

I am sorry Tawn, I am not sure what you are driving at here - even though you have given three examples.......

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Its artistic value isnt in the materials which make it up, but instead the skill, time invested, the artists ideas that went into its creation.

Is it? Or is value is a judgement and not something independent of the person or culture making the evaluation? Isn't this what reification fallacy is all about?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm with Michel here, Tawn. Lots of great points are made, but I am missing the central underlying theme.

Deut,

Not all reifications are fallacious, and this does not appear to be one even at that. He is keeping the abstract as just that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not all reifications are fallacious, and this does not appear to be one even at that.

Value is a judgement and not something independent of the person or culture making the evaluation.

 

[Katzpur]

So whats going on here???

Like everybody else, I'm not quite sure.

However, in the unlikely event that I do actually understand what you're driving at, I'd say that the original would have a greater intrinsic value that its exact replica, even if the two were indistinguishable from one another. I say this because the original came first. The replica would exist only because the original was seen as valuable. In other words, the replica owes its existence to the original, giving the original one quality the replica doesn't have.

If I'm totally misunderstanding the point of all this, I wouldn't be at all surprized. I'm pretty dense when it comes to philosophical arguments of this sort.

Kathryn

 

[Tawn]

There is no underlying point. Its up for discussion!!!! Im not trying to argue anything here..

My personal stance though, is that these 'qualities' we assign to things do not actually exist. Stricly speaking. One cannot deny that effort and creativity went into the creation of the mona lisa - yet those things are fleeting things. THey have no physical substance and therefore do not carry with the object. The art isnt in the object - but in the process of creation. What we percieve later to be contained within the object is simply our own perception - we project these qualities onto the object.

Ive thought about this only because ive had to deal with modern art through my course - and I can tell you I didnt have the best appreciation of modern art before I started.. however I have come to realise a few things (i hope).. and whilst I maintain a level of disgust at the way objects of art are given monetart value which has no relevance to the object.. I can actually see what art admirers are getting at.

I am continually reminded of a trip to BArcelona I once had. I visited an art museum with my g/f and I found it the most depressing thing. The rooms were stark and bland (all concrete) and the artistic objects were just weird.. not things that I could appreciate..
Then walking away from the museum I saw some graffiti on a wall. LIFE IS ART AND ART IS LIFE.
A few streets later I was on Las Ramblas, the main tourist avenue which is usually littered with these entertainers who stand still as statues and are painted as statues.
It hit me then that very moment. Art isnt something to be contained and stored and displayed in a bland environment. That museum was devoid of art. The very antithesis of art itself, since the place was lifeless and sterile. The object contained within were no longer undergoing their creative phase (being made/thought up) - the art had left them. They were instead empty shells, reminders of the art that was there. Outside, where things are changing and happening - thats where art is.

Anyhow, thought id just share that thought thats been wandering around somewhere in the back of my head for a while..

 

[Tawn]

Is it? Or is value is a judgement and not something independent of the person or culture making the evaluation? Isn't this what reification fallacy is all about?

Yeah I agree with that. Its all human perception. These 'values' arent really in existance.. they are entirely in the realm of human thought and the social arena..

 

[Tawn]

However, in the unlikely event that I do actually understand what you're driving at, I'd say that the original would have a greater intrinsic value that its exact replica, even if the two were indistinguishable from one another. I say this because the original came first. The replica would exist only because the original was seen as valuable. In other words, the replica owes its existence to the original, giving the original one quality the replica doesn't have.

If I'm totally misunderstanding the point of all this, I wouldn't be at all surprized. I'm pretty dense when it comes to philosophical arguments of this sort.

No, no.. youre on the right track.. and youre actually offering an alternative opinion to the one me and deut ascribe to.

To your credit you thought of it from an angle I hadnt considered!!! i.e. That chronology is of some importance.

Again I believe that chronology is history.. and therefore only of importance to those who remember it (or think they remember it). Theres no physical difference that that chronology has brought about. For example, what is the difference between two twins one born minutes before the other? Nothing really. Yet the difference between an old man and a young man is evident.

Would you assign more value to an object because it was THE VERY FIRST off the production line? Some people would..

 

[michel]

There is another way of looking at answering your question - for sake of example, go to a live concert, and then see it reproduced on Television........

There is a great difference, is there not? - OK you might say that it is due to music volume, sound quality etc, but there is one added ingredient that you cannot replicate - The 'presence of the artist/s".

 

[Tawn]

There is another way of looking at answering your question - for sake of example, go to a live concert, and then see it reproduced on Television........

There is a great difference, is there not? - OK you might say that it is due to music volume, sound quality etc, but there is one added ingredient that you cannot replicate - The 'presence of the artist/s".

Absolutely. However, one might argue that there are quantifiable differences by having a live performance as opposed to a recored performance. Sometimes the little errors and changes that are made enhance the performance..
However, there is a certain amount of psychology going on here I feel. A listener believes they are getting a superior performance simply by virtue of the artist being there.
Then again, if we refer to my comments about art being a part of life rather than the objects.. perhaps it is a superior performance because we can actually WITNESS the effort and skill going into the performance.
Can this witnessing be recorded and stored? Ohh now, youve just made this debate 10 times more complex.. hehe.. thanks..

 

[Katzpur]

No, no.. youre on the right track.. and youre actually offering an alternative opinion to the one me and deut ascribe to.

To your credit you thought of it from an angle I hadnt considered!!! i.e. That chronology is of some importance.

Again I believe that chronology is history.. and therefore only of importance to those who remember it (or think they remember it). Theres no physical difference that that chronology has brought about. For example, what is the difference between two twins one born minutes before the other? Nothing really. Yet the difference between an old man and a young man is evident.

Would you assign more value to an object because it was THE VERY FIRST off the production line? Some people would..

I'm still seeing the original as being of greater value. Looking at your example involving identical twins. Regardless of which one was born first, I'd say that neither one was conceived prior to the other. They were conceived simultaneously, or at least became independent of each other simultaneously. Thus, neither one is a replica of the other. However, if we were speaking of cloning, the cloned individual would owe its existence to the fact that another just like it existed first.

 

[Tawn]

I'm still seeing the original as being of greater value. Looking at your example involving identical twins. Regardless of which one was born first, I'd say that neither one was conceived prior to the other. They were conceived simultaneously, or at least became independent of each other simultaneously. Thus, neither one is a replica of the other. However, if we were speaking of cloning, the cloned individual would owe its existence to the fact that another just like it existed first.

Hmz.. interesting.. would you regard the human clone as a lesser person then?

 

[Katzpur]

Hmz.. interesting.. would you regard the human clone as a lesser person then?

Yes, probably, for the reasons I've already explained. The clone is a duplicate of the original; the original is not a duplicate of the clone, IMO.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Two quotes come to mind:
'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.' and
'Something is worth as much as someone else is willing to pay for it.'

To take it a step further, let's say you have the Mona Lisa, an molecularly identical replicated copy, and a copy painted by an equally skilled but not yet famous painter. Who's to say that the original is worth several million while the others could be purchased at the flea market?

...yet some people will assign a 'value' to the item because of its history...

I think you provided a valid explanation in the first post. I have a baseball signed by Dale Murphy who played baseball for the Atlanta Braves. If you've never heard of him, think David Beckham signing a futbol. I didn't get to meet him or witness his signing it, but I was told that he actually did sign it. To me, the baseball evokes memories of his heroics for many years on a Braves team that wasn't good. If I were to find out someone else signed his name, the ball would be worth less on the market as collectors would require authenticity, but it would not lose any value to me. I'm not keeping the ball for it's potential dollar value but rather its sentimental value. Maybe I'm just peculiar.

 

[Whitsuntide]

I agree with Cap's line of thinking.

For me, I'm a complete art novice, I just look at it or listen to it. I like to listen to Mozart, Wagner and soft 'celtic' music because they make my imagination soar. For a few minutes I am a strolling through a cobblestone street in medieval Europe, or a valiant soldier in WWI. I am acting out a scene in my mind just the same as the mime on the street is acting out their scene.

If art is the life of these creative moments, what these artists have done is place a fantastic tool in existence that helps a common person like me live my own art for a moment.

 

[Unedited]

Very interesting thread!

One cannot deny that effort and creativity went into the creation of the mona lisa - yet those things are fleeting things. THey have no physical substance and therefore do not carry with the object.

The effort made to create the object is not fleeting, it will stay with the painting forever. Just because ‘effort’ is not a physical thing, does not mean that it does not carry with the object. So even if every atom of the Mona Lisa were recreated, the energy within it would not be.

Hmz.. interesting.. would you regard the human clone as a lesser person then?

I wouldn’t, and neither would I regard the second Mona Lisa as ‘lesser,’ just not the same.

 

[Unedited]

I agree with Cap's line of thinking.

For me, I'm a complete art novice, I just look at it or listen to it. I like to listen to Mozart, Wagner and soft 'celtic' music because they make my imagination soar. For a few minutes I am a strolling through a cobblestone street in medieval Europe, or a valiant soldier in WWI. I am acting out a scene in my mind just the same as the mime on the street is acting out their scene.

If art is the life of these creative moments, what these artists have done is place a fantastic tool in existence that helps a common person like me live my own art for a moment.

That kind of points to my way of thinking when it comes to art. Art is not about the creativity or the effort that went into creating it, but what it makes you feel. I have several prints of Monet up around my room, some of which I have seen the original for. Now, while it was exciting to actually see the originals, they made me feel exactly as their copies.

A second copy of the Mona Lisa would still give me the same feeling as the first. It would have artistic value, but I think it's important that it would still be the Mona Lisa. Whoever created the second could not take credit for the way it makes me feel, just as I can't take credit for a CD I burn. And is the Mona Lisa we see today really the original? Or is it Leonardo da Vinci? After all, it's him who makes me feel, not the dried paint.

Just thinking (rambling) out loud...