11 May
2001
11 May
'01
1:45 a.m.
On 11 May 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:
Would, as you said above originally, a replica of the "Mona Lisa" be
superior to the original, of which there is only one, painted by Leonardo
da Vinci, one of the most celebrated scientists in all of history? The
difference, the BIG difference, is that the original was touched by the
man himself.
Which is what I think we've been missing here. In terms of the computer
kit that started this thread, the originals were touched by the hands of
someone long ago, in a different place and time. When those originals
come into our possession, we have an immediate and tangible connection to
that past, and we now feel we have a part of it.
That is one reason why we collect, whether you plan to store it or use it.
Deep down we feel a connection to the past.
A replica cannot offer that connection.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
> Really,
asd long as the reproduction is identical in every sense, why
> would it matter when it was built? I wouldn't really mind replacing my
> 1992 Amiga 4000 with a freshly built replica. As long as it looked and
> behaved like my current A4000, but didn't consist of eight-year-old
> hardware, the new model would be superior. Likewise, why would it
> matter whether your issue of X-men was printed in 1996 instead of
> 1963? Is it the actual reading material or 30-year old paper you're
> looking for? OTOH, packaging is important to me, and so is the
> condition of the equipment I get. I find aesthetic pleasure in the
> design of the computer and its packaging. I do, however, not find
> aesthetic pleasure in the sight of old plastic. New plastic works just
> as well, and so do new circuits.
How would you feel about a reproduction of a
famous painting, like say the
"Mona Lisa"?
Nothing wrong with that. Why should Mona Lisa only be the right of rich
people?