12 May
2001
12 May
'01
3:06 a.m.
On 12 May 2001, Iggy Drougge wrote:
Da Vinci is famous because he (along with a lot of
other works)
painted Mona Lisa, not the opposite. If the greatness of Mona Lisa
lies in being touched by him, then wouldn't his utensils be works of
art as well?
Silly argument, but I'll humor you by saying they would at least be highly
collectable (and highly valued), as they were used to paint the Mona Lisa.
Are you starting to see the connection here?
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.
But then that is metaphysics, and should we really
invest that much
money into something which essentially would be a golden calf?
A golden calf, as in idol worshipping? Is this becoming religious? I
hope not. Things connect us to the past. Perhaps you keep a memento that
reminds you of a dead relative, for example? Or maybe you're an
emotionless bastard and you don't, in which case you can't understand my
point?
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!
:)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org