Jeff Hellige skrev:
>>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.
You're wrong, there are actually millions of Mona Lisas.
>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?
Assuming they copied the board layout, there would be no difference.
Besides, I don't believe that you'd really need the actual painting in order
to discern his technique. I don't even believe that his greatness lay in his
brush technique, but rather in his choice of motives and composition.
And as for computers, which are mass produced, there is even less of such
technique to discern. Once a board is exposed, you may just as well do another
hundred.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.
Received on Mon May 14 2001 - 07:28:13 BST