Sellam Ismail skrev:
>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?
Of course they would be highly valued, but my point is not whether they are,
but whether they should.
>> 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.
Are copies less tangible?
>> 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?
I'd go for the second. Bastards don't have emotional ties to their relatives.
=)
>> 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!
It doesn't matter whether it's built in Taiwan or the Czech republic as long
as it's according to the plans.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
optimus_at_dec:foo$ %blow
bash: fg: %blow: no such job
Received on Sat May 12 2001 - 12:45:16 BST