On 12 May 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:
> >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.
You say "of course they would be highly valued" then as whether they
should. That's for you to decide. I would highly value them.
> >Abstractly, yes. The original is a tangible product of the man, hence
> >it's value relative to copies.
>
> Are copies less tangible?
No, but they don't offer a direct connection to Da Vinci. I would prefer
something Da Vinci himself had a hand in creating rather than some 3rd
rate art school schlub, or even a 1st rate renowned painter (unless I
happen to be fond of the 3rd rate schlub or the 1st rate painter).
Again, the connection is with the creator. And you've been arguing this
for so long now that you've forgotten that we are not judging the work in
and of itself. The work stands alone for judgement whether it be an old
computer or a painting. But the original was a direct part of someone's
life, and in that regard it is "tangible", whereas a new reproduction or
copy is not (not tangible to anyone elses life besides now your own).
> >> 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.
And if all you're after is functionality then your point is well taken.
However, if you're after historical context then the original is obviously
preferred.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
Received on Sat May 12 2001 - 23:24:29 BST