On 12 May 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:
> Da Vinci is famous because he (along with a lot of other works)
> painted Mona Lisa, not the opposite. If the greatness of Mona Lisa
> lies in being touched by him, then wouldn't his utensils be works of
> art as well?
Silly argument, but I'll humor you by saying they would at least be highly
collectable (and highly valued), as they were used to paint the Mona Lisa.
Are you starting to see the connection here?
> Da Vinci's greatness as an artist stemmed IOW from his ability to
> produce great works of art. A work of art is a work of art even if
> mass-produced, the last century has taught us as much.
Abstractly, yes. The original is a tangible product of the man, hence
it's value relative to copies.
> But then that is metaphysics, and should we really invest that much
> money into something which essentially would be a golden calf?
A golden calf, as in idol worshipping? Is this becoming religious? I
hope not. Things connect us to the past. Perhaps you keep a memento that
reminds you of a dead relative, for example? Or maybe you're an
emotionless bastard and you don't, in which case you can't understand my
point?
> But of course it can! It's built from the same plans and offers the
> same functionality.
And it has all the historical significance that everything "Made in
Taiwan" has. Yes, of course!
:)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
Received on Sat May 12 2001 - 10:06:51 BST