14 May
2001
14 May
'01
10:56 a.m.
Sellam Ismail skrev:
On 14 May 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:
> Don't put this up in the emotion register,
this belongs in the
> sentimentality register. I can't see Da Vinci's fingerprints, you
Sentimentality IS an emotional response, silly!
I'd call it a tainted emotion.
> 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.
All I can say is "whatever", Iggy. You
obviously see things much
differently on this point and there's no sense in continuing to beat it
into oblivion.
No. =)
> >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.
Ah, we're making progress.
A bad copy is bad.
> >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.
Yes it is. Just like each copy is unique. Maybe you
were given a copy of
the Mona Lisa by your favorite relative and on the back he or she wrote
something to you. It would now be unique. And perhaps quite meaningful
to you.
Now we're making progress. Just like every copy is unique. We're all unique,
but then uniqueness is not a particularly unique trait. =)
> >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
EXACTLY! He would not be Iggy, just a replica!
But not even a good replica! He'd just be a lump of flesh which looked like
me, just like a cardboard mockup of your favourite computer.
IT'S THE SAME THING WITH SOMEONE TRYING TO SELL A
MODERN-DAY MARK-8 KIT AS
AN ORIGINAL FROM THE 1970'S!!!
Not really, that is a fully-fledged clone, like the one below.
Oh, you cut that one out...
> >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..."
Or it could result in an embarassing snub, or a painful
slap.
No need to be so tactile.
> > 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.
If you are looking at it from the perspective of a tool
for doing
something with, yes, you are correct. If you're looking at it as an
actual piece of history, an artifact, no, you are incorrect.
Why? A commy is a commy is a commy.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
[E]xcept in the works of Gunnar Asplund, architect of the Stockholm Exhibition
of 1930 and the Stockholm crematorium, Sweden has never contributed much to
the revolutionary developments through which modern architecture made its
initial impact on the world.
J.M. Richards, Modern Architecture