Why is a replica less valuable?

[dimreepr]

If I get an artist to perfectly (or as near as feck-it is to swearing) reproduce the 'mona lisa' and then let an illusionist play 'find the lady' with them, who decides which is more beautiful?

 

Edited September 3, 2020 by dimreepr

[Area54]

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If I get an artist to perfectly (or as near as feck-it is to swearing) reproduce the 'mona lisa' and then let an illusionist play 'find the lady' with them, who decides which is more beautiful?

 

Are you conflating more beautiful with more valuable?

The original is more valuable since it represents an original perception and expression of that perception. It is qualitative, emotional. The duplicate is quantitative, mechanical.

[dimreepr]

Just now, Area54 said:

Are you conflating more beautiful with more valuable?

What's the difference?

[Area54]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

What's the difference?

Everything. I see little overlap.

The value of the Mona Lisa lies in its subtle evocation of personality and gentle clouding of intent. Any beauty is secondary.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

The original is more valuable since it represents an original perception and expression of that perception. 

If I had an "E-Type" jag and money to burn, I would have it re-built with modern technology; now which is more valuable?

An original "E-Type" that rarely starts and rides like a go-cart.

Or

A convincing copy that starts every time and rides like a 'Rolls'?

5 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Any beauty is secondary.

Then what's the point?

Given that you can't tell the difference...

 

[Area54]

33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If I had an "E-Type" jag and money to burn, I would have it re-built with modern technology; now which is more valuable?

An original "E-Type" that rarely starts and rides like a go-cart.

Or

A convincing copy that starts every time and rides like a 'Rolls'?

It's a value judgement. Which do you place more value in? If I were one of the nouveau riche, one with little sense of history and overloaded with affectation, I would butcher the vehicle and turn it into a "comfortable" ride. If I were a simplistic technophile purist I would savour the idisosynchracies of the 'original' and recall when, before the M6 bypased Birmingham, my friend made it from London to Aberdeen in 7 hours 15 minutes in one, passing down Brechin High Street at 110 mph at 4.00 am.

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then what's the point?

Given that you can't tell the difference...

(Before I place them in the hands of your illusionist I make sure that they are both properly labelled.) The copy never felt the hand of the artist upon it. The original gives us fleeting and ephemeral contact with genius. Humans celebrate genius because we recognise its absence within ourselves.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Area54 said:

The original gives us fleeting and ephemeral contact with genius. Humans celebrate genius because we recognise its absence within ourselves.

Doesn't the printed version do the same?

[MigL]

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If I had an "E-Type" jag and money to burn, I would have it re-built with modern technology; now which is more valuable?

Can I buy your original Jaguar XKE ?
You can keep the copy.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Can I buy your original Jaguar XKE ?

Yes...

But I'd rather eat... 

 

[Area54]

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Doesn't the printed version do the same?

To a lesser extent. I remind you of my earlier comment - that probably I should have made my only comment, as it says it all.

22 minutes ago, Area54 said:

It's a value judgement.

 

[CharonY]

Value is determined by how much buyers are willing to pay, and rarity plays a big role. In case of artwork, in addition to authenticity, the history often also plays an important role. As in many things, context is very important in the assessment of value.

[StringJunky]

A perfect replica still expresses the concept of the artist, which is the real thing of value, in my opinion... the information he wishes to impart.  The value of such things like provenance are emotional intangibles.

[swansont]

Creating is generally harder than copying. Some people assign value to that.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Value is determined by how much buyers are willing to pay

It does not follow, and I did not assume, that @dimreepr  was referring to monetary value. Your comments are spot on in regard to that, but not necessarily relevant to the broader meaning of value.

 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

A perfect replica still expresses the concept of the artist, which is the real thing of value, in my opinion

Which makes it precisely true for you and for others with the same opinion. An alternate view is the original carries with it, for want of a better word, an aura that is unique and important. Both views are correct. The relevant one, for the individual, depends upon their value system.

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Creating is generally harder than copying. Some people assign value to that.

However hard something is to make, it is still what it is. I think synthetic vs natural diamonds illustrates this. People in this instance place more value on the natural diamonds, even though synthetics have less inclusions (flaws).

23 minutes ago, Area54 said:

It does not follow, and I did not assume, that @dimreepr  was referring to monetary value. Your comments are spot on in regard to that, but not necessarily relevant to the broader meaning of value.

 

Which makes it precisely true for you and for others with the same opinion. An alternate view is the original carries with it, for want of a better word, an aura that is unique and important. Both views are correct. The relevant one, for the individual, depends upon their value system.

It's an inarguable subject... purely subjective.

[MigL]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

However hard something is to make, it is still what it is.

Yet Columbus' voyage is in all the history books.
My trip back from Europe, last year, didn't make a single one  .

Sometimes the value is in the achievement, not simply 'what it is'.

Edited September 3, 2020 by MigL

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Yet Columbus' voyage is in all the history books.
My trip back from Europe, last year, didn't make a single one  .

Sometimes the value is in the achievement, not simply 'what it is'.

That''s not a material object and you can't sell it.   

Edited September 3, 2020 by StringJunky

[MigL]

OK.

Columbus' voyage had to be financed by Queen Isabella 1 of Castile, and probably cost millions ( if not billions ) in today's money.
My 'voyage' was paid for with Mastercard.

 

[Area54]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It's an inarguable subject... purely subjective.

I think that's what I said.

[joigus]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If I get an artist to perfectly (or as near as feck-it is to swearing) reproduce the 'mona lisa' and then let an illusionist play 'find the lady' with them, who decides which is more beautiful?

Leonardo.

[Sensei]

There is one true "Mona Lisa" painting made by famous artist hundred years ago.

and there are hundreds (as many as you want) replicas of it.

So value lies in 1) who made it 2) how long ago 3) how many quantities exist 4) quantity of collectors willing to buy

 

Take a look at ancient or historical items. The less units have been made, or the less remained to our times (as majority were destroyed), and remaining items gained on value for collectors.

It is normal capitalistic "fight" between supply and demand.

[CharonY]

On 9/3/2020 at 10:56 AM, Area54 said:

It does not follow, and I did not assume, that @dimreepr  was referring to monetary value. Your comments are spot on in regard to that, but not necessarily relevant to the broader meaning of value.

The argument is not limited to monetary value, though it may be a convenient way to assign value in a specific context. Value is not an intrinsic property of an object, it is something that is assigned by someone.

[dimreepr]

On 9/3/2020 at 11:25 PM, Sensei said:

So value lies in 1) who made it 2) how long ago 3) how many quantities exist 4) quantity of collectors willing to buy

Essentially what you're saying is value, in this context, is determined by the fact that no-one else has it.

A very fragile economy...

Basically, neener neener for the wealthy. 😵

On 9/3/2020 at 11:25 PM, Sensei said:

There is one true "Mona Lisa" painting made by famous artist hundred years ago.

and there are hundreds (as many as you want) replicas of it.

If the recognised owner of the "Mona Lisa" accidentally destroyed it; then, any reasonably convincing replica presented in its place would automatically become the most valuable. 

On 9/3/2020 at 10:36 PM, joigus said:

Leonardo.

Did he paint it to make lots of money or have lots of people look at, and talk about, it?

It reminds me of Banksy's stunt, in which he half shredded his artwork; only for its value to increase... 🙄

Edited September 6, 2020 by dimreepr

[joigus]

45 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

[...]

Did he paint it to make lots of money or have lots of people look at, and talk about, it?

It reminds me of Banksy's stunt, in which he half shredded his artwork; only for its value to increase... 🙄

Leonardo was a privileged kid, so I hardly think that would have been the case. I think Leonardo was thinking of immortality and eternity, I'm sure. Only rich people or very special people (like Van Gogh) can afford that. When art becomes supreme the artist is not thinking about profit.

Going back to @MigL's argument about Columbus; his trip to Europe was not meant as a replica of Columbus'. A replica is an attempt to clone the thing. There is an extra merit to that. If you went to Guanahani today aboard a caravel, that would be more like it.

 

Edited September 6, 2020 by joigus

[Area54]

On 9/6/2020 at 6:06 AM, CharonY said:

Value is not an intrinsic property of an object, it is something that is assigned by someone.

I need to improve my writing skills. That point has been explicit or implicit in each of my posts in the thread.