14 May
2001
14 May
'01
11:52 a.m.
Eric Chomko skrev:
Iggy Drougge wrote:
>> Eric Chomko skrev:
>>
>> 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.
But would you not feel somewhat cheated if the replica
was passed off as an
original?
Haven't I stated time and again that there is no difference? The question is
why anyone would even bother to state whether it is original or not.
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.
I agree, one should be honest.
> >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 most folks want to see the orginal in a museum.
But then again, they usually wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
> >> >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.
In your world...
Granted.
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.
I think so, too.
> >> 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.
But the term vintage or collectible brings on a whole
new meaning.
What meaning?
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
optimus@dec:foo$ %blow
bash: fg: %blow: no such job