14 May
2001
14 May
'01
5:49 a.m.
Iggy Drougge wrote:
But most folks want to see the orginal in a museum.
In your world...
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.
But the term vintage or collectible brings on a whole new meaning.
Eric
Eric Chomko skrev:
But would you not feel somewhat cheated if the replica was passed off as an
original?
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.
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. 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 of course it can!
It's built from the same plans and offers the
> >> >> same functionality.
> >>
> >> >And it has all the historical significance that everything "Made
in
> >> >Taiwan" has. Yes, of course!
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter whether it's built in Taiwan or the Czech republic
as
> >> long as it's according to the plans.
>
> >That's not exactly correct when trying to determine the value of
> >something.
>
> >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.
> 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.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
- Margo! Vad har h?nt. Du ser ju alldeles f?rst?rd ut.
- Dom d?dade mig n?stan f?r att jag misslyckades.
- Vilka ?r dom egentligen?
- Jag vet inte vad dom heter. Men mannen som jagar dig heter Flinch, och han
?r en sadist.
...
- Gud vad jag ?r avundsjuk. Varf?r f?r jag aldrig se n?t s?dant.
Lupin III den otrolige (Lupin III vs. fukusei ningen), TMS 1978