Sellam Ismail skrev:
>On 13 May 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:
>> But they're really just old utensils. Da Vinci's sweat and saliva most
>> likely was no more brilliant than that of any other renaissance
>> Italaian.
>Iggy, he (Da Vinci) touched them. I'm sorry you can't understand it the
>way I do, and that's fine. Maybe I'm weird (ha ha :) But I think you are
>missing something big here. Either that or your emotion chip was removed.
Don't put this up in the emotion register, this belongs in the sentimentality
register. I can't see Da Vinci's fingerprints, you can't see Da Vinci's
fingerprints, Da Vinci's fingerprint were not even interesting. He was a
renaissance man, but though he did master many trades, making beautiful
fingerprints surealy wasn't amongst those.
>> And I'll argue that the reproduction is equal in every sense. Why
>> would the copy be less tangible to anyone else than the original?
>And that's where you are completely wrong. The style or technique or
>color or brush strokes may be off. There may be some nuance of a copy
>that does not have the same effect on someone observing the painting. The
>most important feature of the portait is the subject's faint smile. It
>was just so done to have people wondering just what was on Mona Lisa's
>mind for centuries. A copy may not capture that effect.
In that case, I'll say we ditch the copy, of course.
>> Da Vinci painted the original Mona Lisa. Since then, innumerable
>> reproductions have been made, but they're all Mona Lisas.
>No, they're all copies of THE Mona Lisa. BIG difference.
But since we have the copy, we have our very own Mona Lisas, and THE Mona Lisa
is no more unique.
>> Why? Does historical context lie in the dust and grease?
>Of course. And the scratch marks, the tool indentations, etc. In other
>words the story of the machine. A new replica won't tell any story other
>than "Hi, I'm new."
IOW MISB machines are useless. In that case, I've got machines teeming with
"history" for you. I'll just keep the nice ones. =)
>Here's an analogy. If we were able to clone Iggy and accelerate the
>growth of Iggy Serial Number 2 to where he was the same age as you are
>today, would he be just as good as you? Hell no. He wouldn't have YOUR
>story. He wouldn't have ANY story. He'd be a clean Iggy. He would look
>like you and sound like you, but he probably wouldn't act like you because
>the way you are has been shaped by the last N years of your life. Iggy
>Serial Number 2 will have accumulated no experiences, so he has no stories
>to tell. I'd hate to run into him at a party :)
And then I would argue that he wouldn't be Iggy at all. If you could copy my
mind as well as my body, I would argue that I now had a twin.
>> Tacitus is no less Tacitus whether printed in the 90s AD, the 1920s or
>> last year. It still remains his work.
>Absolutely, but wouldn't it be very cool to hold an original Tacitus (who
>the hell is he?) scroll from 90AD?
Yes, it would. Could be used as a pickup line - "Would you like to come home
with me to see my collection of 90AD scrolls? I've even got a Tacitus..."
>I once had the privelege of entering the Bodleian Library in Oxford,
>England, one of the most prestigious libraries in the world. I remember
>going through the aisles and seeing all manner of tomes, some of which
>were hundreds of years old! I actually got to hold in my own hands a book
>from the late 1400's and leaf through it. Can you imagine that? A book
>over 500 years old in my own hands. I don't even remember what the title
>or subject matter was, but that wasn't important. The most exciting thing
>for me was being able to hold a book that had been read by countless
>others before me going back to almost the time when the printing press was
>invented!
We had such books at our school library as well. It was interesting, quaint,
but then I got the same sensation when we actually studied texts which had
been used throughout centuries in Latin class.
>For some people, the feeling of antiquity is quite a profound one. Have
>you never felt this?
Yes, but I think that it lies in the subject matter. IOW, a reprint of the
same text or a copy of the same board has the same effect. One can still say
that the board was designed in 1978. C64 were produced for 10 years, yet a
1992 model is equally classic, since they didn't touch the design.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
If you consistently take an antagonistic approach, however, people are
going to start thinking you're from New York. :-)
--Larry Wall to Dan Bernstein in <10187_at_jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Received on Mon May 14 2001 - 08:01:37 BST