cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/questions/p/1261259/if-you-could-create-artistic-works-like-the-mona-lisa-gioconda-in-better-quality-should
I feel like I’ve been thinking about this too much in the last few days.
If you could recreate every drawing in history digitally or in better quality overall, wouldn’t your work be considered superior?
Why the hell isn’t there a nonprofit project that does this already?
I think the question is more interesting if you take out the “better quality” qualification. What does better quality even mean? That’s too subjective. I think what we’re trying to figure out is whether an original has any properties to it that a copy cannot.
Let’s say your grandma dies and leaves you something special in memory of her - a ring. Maybe it was her wedding ring and you wear it every day; it makes you feel close to her. Now say I replaced that ring with an identical copy. Does that change anything? Is there some special property imbued in the original? Does it make a difference if I tell you about the swap immediately or if you wear the “fake” for a year before finding out?
There are forgers who can make near identical copies of art. It’s illegal because no one wants a “fake.” But why? In the art world, I think it has a lot to do with exclusivity. The value is in there being only one.
It’s an interesting question that I think is highly subjective. Exclusivity could also play a part In your ring example. Was the grandmothers ring bespoke? If so, even a replica will still be “two” of a kind and I could see the sentimental attributes remaining. However if it was a mass produced item then the only special part was that it was hers, which the replica has lost.
I personally am OK with digitising photographs, and sometimes even pictures of items, because the memoroes they spark are most important to me, however a physical object definitely does have an extra kick if it’s special enough.
In the end sentiment is not very logical, and I think because of that we can never have a true answer.
This is just a ponderous / thought experiment comment.
Tap for ponderings
Actually something really interesting I noticed was when I visited Japan there was an ancient Buddhist temple with attached museum. I thought it was amazing looking at all the old art and treasures and weapons… everyone, myself included, was very impressed with it. Someone mentioned that you can really feel the history and aura and authenticity of the items. Just think about how many millions of other people have held or looked at these items over hundreds of years?
Then I noticed a small plaque, and translated it with my phone. It said everything in this museum is a replica, the originals are kept hidden in another location as sacred artefacts.
I wasn’t sure how to feel about that. I mean it makes sense. You don’t want random weirdoes to destroy the cultural history. But also in a way it’s tricking people. But these replicas were extremely good and convincing; down to the weathering of the parchment, and the dents in the steel.
Eventually I decided that value and authenticity is a fragile human construct. We value these items because they make you feel something, even if they are not the originals, they give you a glimpse into real human history. We give them meaning and value by collective attention and meaning. If everyone held up the copy and said it was just as important, that makes it so. But even just knowing that it is a copy tarnishes the value of it. Therefore the value is stored in the mind, as an environmental and contextual meaning applied to this object.
The same object at the bottom of a dumpster would just be old trash. But we dig it up, and frame it in a museum, that makes it special.