Eric Chomko skrev:
>Iggy Drougge wrote:
>> Eric Chomko skrev:
>>
>> >Iggy Drougge wrote:
>>
>> >> Eric Chomko skrev:
>> >>
>> >> >Iggy Drougge wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Sellam Ismail skrev:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On 12 May 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 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?
>> >>
>> >> >No, more tangible, and that is the point! When speaking of rarity and
>> >> >value one deals with supply and demand. The demand for copies of
>> >> >originals can always met, therefore the price is low. The demand for a
>> >> >unique item will drive the price of the item up as long as more than
>> >> >one person wants it.
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> >There are many fools based upon your assessment. Did you know that Gates
>> >purchased
>> >a painting for $30million a few years ago? Is he an utter fool? This is
>> >not directly related to the arguement but is quite on-topic for the group
>> >and this particular thread.
>>
>> Yes, he is.
>>
>> >Okay, two points...
>>
>> >Gates is worth what, $50billion? Half that? Maybe more or less? Let's use
>> >$30billion to
>> >make a point. Ratio $30million to $30billion is 1 to 1000. If someone has
>> >a net worth of
>> >$300K, then the 1 to 1000 ratio puts their expeniture at $300. Would you
>> >spend
>> >$300
>> >for a "rare" computer (forget panitings for the moment)? Do you see the
>> >point? To Gates spending $30million is not unlike a $300 lay out for us
>> >poor slobs. Its obscene I know, but it is what it is. The worst part is
>> >that I'd be hard pressed to show I got $300K in personal wealth. :(
>>
>> I really doubt I would, but of course I understand that rare items cost
>> more, it's some capitalist principle. OTOH, if there were a replica
>> available at a lesser price, I would buy that one.
>But would you not feel somewhat cheated if the replica was passed off as an
>original?
Haven't I stated time and again that there is no difference? The question is
why anyone would even bother to state whether it is original or not.
>Honest business, despite what you make think of the system overall, is at
>least honest. Confusing capitalism with deception is a flaw that I have noted
>with some folks that come from Europe. I see a clear difference.
I agree, one should be honest.
>> >The second point is, suppose an organization like a museum or foundation
>> >raise enough money to make a purchase like one for a rare painting, is
>> >that such a bad thing? They put it on display for the public to see. Is
>> >this a ship of fools in your book?
>>
>> Well, at least then it doesn't end up in Bill Gates' home, but they could
>> just as well settle for a replica IMO. Many museums do, in fact.
>But most folks want to see the orginal in a museum.
But then again, they usually wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
>> >> >By your own arguement, no one here should collect an old computer based
>> >> >upon functionality, as I can buy a new one than can out perform the old
>> >> >ones. Therefore, no one should bother with older ones regardless of
>> >> >model or type.
>> >>
>> >> In what way can any computer outperform another? Every computer is
>> >> unique in its own sense, isn't that why we collect several?
>>
>> >Agreed. So why would a replica of a painting be any different than the
>> >replica of a computer?
>>
>> Agreed. A computer replica is equal to the original, a replica of a
>> painting is equal to the original.
>In your world...
Granted.
>Just don't expect others to believe it. And as I have said often before in
>other posting forums, it may have to be a case where we simply must have to
>agree to disagree.
I think so, too.
>> >> We don't use computers to run benchmarks. At least not most of the time.
>>
>> >True, but I think I missed the point of that.
>>
>> If that were all we used computers for, we would all just run what's cheap
>> and fast, going by Sellam's argument. But then all computers (except for
>> IBM PC clones) have something which is unique, something which made them
>> sell in the first place.
>But the term vintage or collectible brings on a whole new meaning.
What meaning?
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
optimus_at_dec:foo$ %blow
bash: fg: %blow: no such job
Received on Mon May 14 2001 - 18:52:42 BST