>My point is that Mona Lisa isn't rare since there are reproductions. Anyone
>who'd pay millions more for the "original" is an utter fool.
The 'actual' Mon Lisa is rare because there is only one of
them. Images of the painting are not rare and these reproductions,
regardless of how well done, lack all the various things that make it
a DaVinci, such as the way he did the brushstrokes. In much the same
way a reproduction of a computer system will fall short of the
original since there are likely miniscule things that were left out
that were in the original. Sometimes though it is these minor things
that mean the difference. If one wants to look at the Mona Lisa as a
whole, any image or reproduction of it will suffice. If one wants to
actually study how DaVinci painted and what made his style unique
then you must seek out an original. In the end, it all boils down to
what level one looks at and appreciates the item as to how important
the vintage or original is. For most people, a copy is all well and
good but there are those whose appreciation goes deepter, for reasons
no less valid. One could likely replicate early designs of Steve
Wozniak without too much trouble but would that same replica convey
his sense of style in the board layout, unless it was just an
outright copy?
Jeff
--
Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems:
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
Received on Sun May 13 2001 - 17:51:12 BST