12 May
2001
12 May
'01
5:45 a.m.
Sellam Ismail skrev:
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?
Of course they would be highly valued, but my point is not whether they are,
but whether they should.
> 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?
> 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?
I'd go for the second. Bastards don't have emotional ties to their relatives.
=)
> 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.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
optimus@dec:foo$ %blow
bash: fg: %blow: no such job