Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Authenticity: should we care?

QinguQingu Registered User regular
edited November 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
After Lord Obama got elected, my girlfriend and I got into an interesting discussion. She argued that memorabilia from the election will be worth a lot of money someday. I disagreed, and here is why.

It's obvious that it is easier to duplicate artwork today than ever before. The difference between an "original" piece of music or piece of Photoshop artwork and the music/art consumed is simply filesize—the consumers' copies are compressed.

Physical pieces of artwork (like old paintings) are obviously still quite valuable. But museums, I think, are less important now than ever—I don't need to go to a museum or even go to a library to see a painting, I can spend five seconds and GIS it. Yes, my monitor cannot replicate the delicate texture of the painting, its imposing size, its musty scent, etc—but it's not hard to imagine a near-future where you can upload the intricate details of such physical objects, down to microscopic details, to some kind of virtual database and allow millions of people to at least look at them in high-fidelity (if not touch).

I have a vintage copy of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, with red Ganon blood and full-on blasphemous Fire Temple music (later copies changed the blood to green and revamped the music so it didn't offend Muslims). Is my copy more "authentic" than later copies? The question is approaching mootness today: it would be trivial for someone to hack the source code and upload either version for consumption, and this will certainly be more true in the future.

Why would anyone care about a vintage Obama poster in 20 or 30 years when they can go online, download the original Photoshop file of the poster's artwork, and enter a virtual-reality simulation of the Grant Park extravaganza from which it came? I accept that there will be some sentimental holdouts who value physical mediums over electronic duplication—but I see such people as a shrinking minority of traditionalists, shrinking faster as more and more of our culture's artwork and expression is electronic (and thus, easily replicable) in nature.

Is this a bad thing? Should we value authenticity? I'm not sure if we should. The idea of authenticity seems very interwoven with the prior idea of property—this is mine and no one else's. This is original and everything else is a copy. And obviously, this association makes sense—artists need to get paid, and an effective way to do that has been to consciously correspond authenticity with property, so that "authentic" pieces are worth more than their imitators. But in today's world, physical authenticity-as-property has been subsumed by the idea of intellectual property, which says nothing about the physical medium or its replicability.

I'm certainly in favor of rewarding people for their ideas and artwork. But I could care less if the ideas and artwork I experience are "authentic" or "copies" if there is no meaningful difference between the two, and I don't think maintaining such a difference is inherently valuable to society.

Qingu on
«1

Posts

  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Caaba Beankomy XobthroRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I think there is somthing mercurial about authenticity. For example, I think that Obama pins or bumper stickers might be worth somthing. Official campagin things will probably be worth more, while those plates they have been pushing, probably not.

    Is there any reason to keep around the authentic? Probably not.

    But it is still somthing that I think will stay around. I mean, people still buy say, P-diddys used tissue on ebay, because he has touched it. But in less ridduculous objects, people buy signed books, or even original manuscripts. There is somthing about authenticity, somthing about the famous touching it, that people must believe "rubs off" It is almost like a religious idea.

    JebusUD on
    And I won, so you lose,
    Guess it always comes down to.
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    The reason "collectible" shit isn't worth anything any more isn't because it's easily reproduced - it's because people have started keeping new stuff thinking that someday it will be valuable. Your mom's 1961 Mickey Mantle card? That's worth something now simply because the thousands of kids who had that card taped it to their bike spokes to make a motorcycle noise, and as for the rest, their mothers threw all their cards out when they were in college in the 70's. The reality is that anything that appears "collectible" now isn't going to have that much value simply because people are keeping more stuff.

    tsmvengy on
    steam_sig.png
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    That reminds me of when I went to the latest Mitch Benn gig - he said that since all of the physical copies of his CD had been sold by him after the gigs, the ones that weren't signed were rarer.

    Rhesus Positive on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Eh, for most people the collectibleness of it is a result of the memories or symbolism that can be attached to it. I have one of the very first Obama Biden signs to exist because I was down in Springfield at the announcement. It doesn't look any different from the millions of others out there, but it has a special meaning to me. Chiefly the 3rd degree sunburns that I foolishly got, the cool people I hung out with, and the train ride back home which was also fun. Sure I could shred it and just print something else out on card stock if I ever want to show my grandkids, but it wouldn't hold the same aura. And that's the point. You don't, or shouldn't, buy collectibles because it's totally going to be worth $Texas one day and you'll manage to retire off of commemorative plates and buttons. You buy them because they are like photographs. Living memories of some of the stupid stuff that you felt was important way back when.

    moniker on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    Eh, for most people the collectibleness of it is a result of the memories or symbolism that can be attached to it. I have one of the very first Obama Biden signs to exist because I was down in Springfield at the announcement. It doesn't look any different from the millions of others out there, but it has a special meaning to me. Chiefly the 3rd degree sunburns that I foolishly got, the cool people I hung out with, and the train ride back home which was also fun. Sure I could shred it and just print something else out on card stock if I ever want to show my grandkids, but it wouldn't hold the same aura. And that's the point. You don't, or shouldn't, buy collectibles because it's totally going to be worth $Texas one day and you'll manage to retire off of commemorative plates and buttons. You buy them because they are like photographs. Living memories of some of the stupid stuff that you felt was important way back when.
    Yes, but is this true for every art form?

    A few decades ago a certain record might have sentimental value: "this is the record I listened to when I met <3 <3 <3." But today this is less likely. Would anyone say "this particular mp3 on this particular hard drive is the one I listened to..."? The record is unique, but mp3s are by nature not unique. And I think as more art moves in this direction, the mentality surrounding art's sentimental value will shift as well.

    Qingu on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2008
    Qingu wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Eh, for most people the collectibleness of it is a result of the memories or symbolism that can be attached to it. I have one of the very first Obama Biden signs to exist because I was down in Springfield at the announcement. It doesn't look any different from the millions of others out there, but it has a special meaning to me. Chiefly the 3rd degree sunburns that I foolishly got, the cool people I hung out with, and the train ride back home which was also fun. Sure I could shred it and just print something else out on card stock if I ever want to show my grandkids, but it wouldn't hold the same aura. And that's the point. You don't, or shouldn't, buy collectibles because it's totally going to be worth $Texas one day and you'll manage to retire off of commemorative plates and buttons. You buy them because they are like photographs. Living memories of some of the stupid stuff that you felt was important way back when.
    Yes, but is this true for every art form?

    A few decades ago a certain record might have sentimental value: "this is the record I listened to when I met <3 <3 <3." But today this is less likely. Would anyone say "this particular mp3 on this particular hard drive is the one I listened to..."? The record is unique, but mp3s are by nature not unique. And I think as more art moves in this direction, the mentality surrounding art's sentimental value will shift as well.

    Art has always been about the sensations, though. Other things are valuable for historical significance, in which case a copy of an item would be about as valuable as the image of said thing on the Wikipedia page.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    ITT... depression!

    Sadly, I think you're right. And I don't even know why it's sad, really... but the idea that a memory or feeling devoid of context (the smell of the museume that day, the sounds, a scratch on a record that made it unique) is unimportant and will, one day, even be obsolete, is just saddening.

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Qingu wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Eh, for most people the collectibleness of it is a result of the memories or symbolism that can be attached to it. I have one of the very first Obama Biden signs to exist because I was down in Springfield at the announcement. It doesn't look any different from the millions of others out there, but it has a special meaning to me. Chiefly the 3rd degree sunburns that I foolishly got, the cool people I hung out with, and the train ride back home which was also fun. Sure I could shred it and just print something else out on card stock if I ever want to show my grandkids, but it wouldn't hold the same aura. And that's the point. You don't, or shouldn't, buy collectibles because it's totally going to be worth $Texas one day and you'll manage to retire off of commemorative plates and buttons. You buy them because they are like photographs. Living memories of some of the stupid stuff that you felt was important way back when.
    Yes, but is this true for every art form?

    A few decades ago a certain record might have sentimental value: "this is the record I listened to when I met <3 <3 <3." But today this is less likely. Would anyone say "this particular mp3 on this particular hard drive is the one I listened to..."? The record is unique, but mp3s are by nature not unique. And I think as more art moves in this direction, the mentality surrounding art's sentimental value will shift as well.

    That's because data is seen as immaterial while artifacts are inherently physical, no matter how ephemeral it may be. The architectonic nature of them permits a particular bond rather than a more ephemeral attachment. 'Our song' may simply be a memory, however the CD or vinyl album that physically existed for your first :winky: would have more attachment because of the simple fact that it physically exists.

    And I feel that there are very few forms of art that are truly capable of moving in that direction. Regardless of how well reproductions are capable of displaying them, there is something about being in the presence of a real work of art. I've seen La Grand Jatte countless times, but when I'm standing at the end of the hall in the Art Institute it always feels different than when it's on my desktop, or a poster on someone's wall, or on the side of a bus. That's never going to change. Some things may work better as placeless data, but not everything.

    moniker on
  • ApathyKillsApathyKills __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    I don't see technology changing how collectors percieve authenticity. I think their reasons for collecting lie in the fact that they can say this specific object existed in this time and place of significance and therein lies its value. For them a replica has no value no matter how accurately it was crafted. it's still just a copy. although personally I will never understand why someone would pay 10,000 dollars for an original unopened luke skywalker action figure, but it would seem this is the rationale.

    ApathyKills on
    deleted courtesy orikae
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Were you just forced to read Walter Benjamin?

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    The t-shirts etc. aren't likely to be valuable for a long time just because there's so durn many of them, though it's perfectly reasonable to be personally fond of a t-shirt you wore while canvassing. Sure, it would be easy to reprint that shirt later on, but why would you except to counterfeit them for sale? (and then, you would have to assume that they were worth at least as much as the materials + time to make them, so that would indicate an appreciation in value)

    The newspapers, on the other hand, have already jumped nearly 1000% in price, and are only likely to rise.

    MrMonroe on
  • ApathyKillsApathyKills __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Best stock up now as they will inevitably sky rocket after he is assasinated.

    ApathyKills on
    deleted courtesy orikae
  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Best stock up now as they will inevitably sky rocket after he is assasinated.

    Look, I don't want to see the word assassinated and a reference to Obama, not here, not anywhere, I don't really care if you're joking or not, just don't even say it.

    Dman on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I agree the reproduction technology does not make collectibles worth less, and that isn't even the point. Authenticity is about being authentic, not about being similar.

    Yar on
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Were you just forced to read Walter Benjamin?
    No, I've never heard of that dude.

    But yeah. What he said.

    Qingu on
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Qingu wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Eh, for most people the collectibleness of it is a result of the memories or symbolism that can be attached to it. I have one of the very first Obama Biden signs to exist because I was down in Springfield at the announcement. It doesn't look any different from the millions of others out there, but it has a special meaning to me. Chiefly the 3rd degree sunburns that I foolishly got, the cool people I hung out with, and the train ride back home which was also fun. Sure I could shred it and just print something else out on card stock if I ever want to show my grandkids, but it wouldn't hold the same aura. And that's the point. You don't, or shouldn't, buy collectibles because it's totally going to be worth $Texas one day and you'll manage to retire off of commemorative plates and buttons. You buy them because they are like photographs. Living memories of some of the stupid stuff that you felt was important way back when.
    Yes, but is this true for every art form?

    A few decades ago a certain record might have sentimental value: "this is the record I listened to when I met <3 <3 <3." But today this is less likely. Would anyone say "this particular mp3 on this particular hard drive is the one I listened to..."? The record is unique, but mp3s are by nature not unique. And I think as more art moves in this direction, the mentality surrounding art's sentimental value will shift as well.

    Maybe not the mp3 itself, but the computer it's on will still have sentimental value, or the speakers used to listen to it. I have an old broken Zen Micro that still means something to me, for example.

    As for the original question of technology supplanting older works' originality, the authentic will still have meaning for a similar reason that moniker said, just more impersonally; this is THE canvas that Monet painted on, with THE paint he mixed, so all of the feelings that go with that are uniquely bound to the one painting he himself made instead of any replica. With other works it can simply be a way to express the dedication they have to it; I want an original print record of Low simply because I think it's an amazing album and want to honor it, or brag about how much I love it, or what have you, and I can do that by acquiring an original print.

    Cervetus on
    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I definitely think people will pull out an old obsolete iPod, for example, and remember that they listened to it together on their first date or whatever.

    Yar on
  • ApathyKillsApathyKills __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    Dman wrote: »
    Best stock up now as they will inevitably sky rocket after he is assasinated.

    Look, I don't want to see the word assassinated and a reference to Obama, not here, not anywhere, I don't really care if you're joking or not, just don't even say it.

    well, like it or not you're going to keep hearing it because it unfortunately a rather likely scenario. choosing not to mention it though is not going have any effect on the likelihood that it will occur.

    ApathyKills on
    deleted courtesy orikae
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2008
    Dman wrote: »
    Best stock up now as they will inevitably sky rocket after he is assasinated.

    Look, I don't want to see the word assassinated and a reference to Obama, not here, not anywhere, I don't really care if you're joking or not, just don't even say it.

    well, like it or not you're going to keep hearing it because it unfortunately a rather likely scenario. choosing not to mention it though is not going have any effect on the liklihood that it will occur.

    If only he'd picked Rahm. Nobody would dare assassinate Obama for fear of the next in line. It worked wonders for Bush.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Dman wrote: »
    Best stock up now as they will inevitably sky rocket after he is assasinated.

    Look, I don't want to see the word assassinated and a reference to Obama, not here, not anywhere, I don't really care if you're joking or not, just don't even say it.

    well, like it or not you're going to keep hearing it because it unfortunately a rather likely scenario. choosing not to mention it though is not going have any effect on the likelihood that it will occur.

    Not to get off-topic, but how does one assess the "likelihood" that someone is going to be assassinated? What makes Obama any more or less likely to actually be killed in office then Clinton or George W?

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Dman wrote: »
    Best stock up now as they will inevitably sky rocket after he is assasinated.

    Look, I don't want to see the word assassinated and a reference to Obama, not here, not anywhere, I don't really care if you're joking or not, just don't even say it.

    well, like it or not you're going to keep hearing it because it unfortunately a rather likely scenario. choosing not to mention it though is not going have any effect on the likelihood that it will occur.

    It's rather likely that attempts will be made, but I can't imagine it's likely he actually will be assassinated.

    Cervetus on
    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    Best stock up now as they will inevitably sky rocket after he is assasinated.

    Look, I don't want to see the word assassinated and a reference to Obama, not here, not anywhere, I don't really care if you're joking or not, just don't even say it.

    well, like it or not you're going to keep hearing it because it unfortunately a rather likely scenario. choosing not to mention it though is not going have any effect on the likelihood that it will occur.

    It's rather likely that attempts will be made, but I can't imagine it's likely he actually will be assassinated.

    It is guaranteed that attempts will be made. Every president has had assassination attempts on his life since Kennedy. Not that it matters, as we don't have any control over it and any discussion of it is beyond macabre.

    It also has nothing to do with the topic, which is an authentic thread.

    moniker on
  • ApathyKillsApathyKills __BANNED USERS
    edited November 2008
    I'm not pretending that I am able to offer any sort of substantial evidence, but it would seem that way because:
    1) he is black. some people have a problem with this. these people are undisputably crazy
    2) did you read about that group of skinheads that had it in their heads they would go on a nationwide killing spree eventually leading to obamas assasination. I think the fact that this happened before he was even sworn in is a good indicator.


    there's no logic behind this assesment just an uneasy feeling.

    ApathyKills on
    deleted courtesy orikae
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2008
    Sentry wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    Best stock up now as they will inevitably sky rocket after he is assasinated.

    Look, I don't want to see the word assassinated and a reference to Obama, not here, not anywhere, I don't really care if you're joking or not, just don't even say it.

    well, like it or not you're going to keep hearing it because it unfortunately a rather likely scenario. choosing not to mention it though is not going have any effect on the likelihood that it will occur.

    Not to get off-topic, but how does one assess the "likelihood" that someone is going to be assassinated? What makes Obama any more or less likely to actually be killed in office then Clinton or George W?

    Can you think of anybody who both dislikes Bush and thinks that a Cheney presidency wouldn't end in federally mandated goat sacrifice?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • JohannenJohannen Registered User
    edited November 2008
    I think the idea of authenticity when it comes to old collectibles is being wiped out and given a new form in "Limited Edition" and "Collectors Edition" forms of items. A friend lately showed me the price of limited edition WoW box-set, purchased at around £140 (~$220) and the set of three all being auctioned on ebay for around $1600.

    Johannen on
  • JurgJurg In a TeacupRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    When something is physically there, it tends to feel more real.

    The feeling that something is real is one that many people, including myself, value.

    It's not entirely rational, but neither are human beings.

    Edit - I'm referring to the situation of two things having the same content, but on a different medium.

    Jurg on
    sig.gif
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Although this does raise a question of, does the experience of going to a museum to see a Seurat require that the painting hanging on the wall be the authentic Seurat? If they were to replace all of the originals with near perfect reproductions, either via computer simulation or really skilled artists repainting it, while the actual paintings where saran wrapped and put in a climate controlled vault...would you be able to tell the difference? And would it matter? Can the act of going to observe a work of art be separated from the work of art itself? Rather than comparing a painting to a t-shirt with a painting printed on it.

    I'd still say that it mattered, but in a way that I really wouldn't be able to perceive. A slightly different brush stroke by some art student in comparison to one by an old master wouldn't really be noticeable to me. Their physical presence is all that I can really detect and appreciate, but only to the extent to which a layman can.

    moniker on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Basically, people are contrasting "originality" with "repetition." In an "original" is the essence of the creator more present, as opposed to a "repetition of the original," where the author may be thought to not even be present at all. Correct?

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • TaximesTaximes Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I agree with the fact that something original has a certain awe to it that is lost in reproduction, though I admit that I can't logically explain why.

    To those who think there isn't anything special about something original, I think a good question is: What is something that you've found awe-inspiring, and why did you feel that way?

    In an art museum, for example, it's not just the imagery itself that does it, nor is it the size of some of the pieces. Those play a large role, but it's also the fact that as I get close to a piece, I can admire every stroke, appreciating the talent that it took for the artist to know the shape, color, velocity, and pressure of each stroke needed to produce the final, finished product. I can imagine myself there as he or she did so.

    This can be done with a reproduction, too, of course, but reproduction removes you further from the original creation. In the back of my mind, looking at a reproduction, those extra steps are added: "Then someone took a picture of it and made this print," or "then someone studied it to try and recreate the strokes".

    Ever been to ancient ruins? Ever stood in the Colosseum and imagined the hundreds and thousands of people who cheered there, or who fought there, or who died there? In the very same spot that you're in? The hours upon hours of labor it took to design and then to carve the marble, to slowly build the structure piece by piece until it was so solid that it would stand for almost two thousand years? There's history there, and though I can't explain why, it's not the same to look at a picture, or even stand in some replica somewhere. Those are close, but when the authenticity is lost, a lot of the interest is lost.

    How would you feel holding a Philadelphia Deringer pistol? Interested if that's you're thing, maybe, since it's an antique handgun. But...what if you were holding the one that killed Lincoln? It could be physically indistinguishable from another gun of the same model, but if you don't feel any different holding the one with that history, I insist that you must be some sort of android. :P

    Taximes on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    The only thing I care about are the produced items that have defects, not limited quantity collector's shit.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    People do attach an ethereal quality to the notion of authenticity. I think one of the more interesting examples was stuff like limited edition spaceships in EVE Online. Now these are purely digital items, but the existence of a definite statement of "these are all there are" made each one valuable well belong it's material in-game costs.

    electricitylikesme on
  • JohnDoeJohnDoe Registered User
    edited November 2008
    There are counterfeit paintings that match the originals to the point that it takes a a trained person and a lab to distinguish them. But the counterfeit is worth nothing (after being proven to be fake), yet originals sell for millions. Why? With the naked eye its the same thing.

    I think people will just spend money to say they have something that others don't.

    JohnDoe on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I think another way to look at it might be to ask the same questions about why people visit historical sites. No matter how preserved, they're still not really "related" to the events that took place their except for just "being" the place they happened.

    electricitylikesme on
  • real_pochaccoreal_pochacco Registered User
    edited November 2008
    I think another way to look at it might be to ask the same questions about why people visit historical sites. No matter how preserved, they're still not really "related" to the events that took place their except for just "being" the place they happened.

    I often think about this. I never really understood the appeal.

    real_pochacco on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I think another way to look at it might be to ask the same questions about why people visit historical sites. No matter how preserved, they're still not really "related" to the events that took place their except for just "being" the place they happened.

    I often think about this. I never really understood the appeal.
    I understand the appeal on an emotional level, it's just I don't really connect with most of the things my parents have wanted me to see. I think it could also be that I don't connect with my dad's interest in WW2 in quite the same way.

    electricitylikesme on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I think another way to look at it might be to ask the same questions about why people visit historical sites. No matter how preserved, they're still not really "related" to the events that took place their except for just "being" the place they happened.

    I often think about this. I never really understood the appeal.
    I understand the appeal on an emotional level, it's just I don't really connect with most of the things my parents have wanted me to see. I think it could also be that I don't connect with my dad's interest in WW2 in quite the same way.

    Um, why?

    Are you telling me seeing the beach at Normandy, the rows of crosses, wouldn't connect with you?

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    JohnDoe wrote: »
    There are counterfeit paintings that match the originals to the point that it takes a a trained person and a lab to distinguish them. But the counterfeit is worth nothing (after being proven to be fake), yet originals sell for millions. Why? With the naked eye its the same thing.

    I think people will just spend money to say they have something that others don't.

    people that buy those originals value the authenticity of it. having the first one of something matters to some people, what can you do.

    those 'perfect copies' are also worth a good deal as well and allow other people who value having the experience of viewing a real painting to actually own one.

    so yes you should care about authenticity if you value authenticity.

    for the most part seeing the original is always about making sure you saw the actual intent of the creator instead of the interpretation of the copier. with better an better copies the 'interpretation' becomes less important but there is still a value in seeing the original and thinking about the artists state of mind.

    its kind of like playing the original chrono trigger when you were a kid and games often had poor graphics gameplay and story vs a kid playing the playstation version now and being unmoved because there are plenty of games around that don't suck. that snes version of chrono trigger brings back memories of how great the game was back then more so than the new playstation version might. it all depends on if you care though.

    Dunadan019 on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    I think another way to look at it might be to ask the same questions about why people visit historical sites. No matter how preserved, they're still not really "related" to the events that took place their except for just "being" the place they happened.

    I often think about this. I never really understood the appeal.
    I understand the appeal on an emotional level, it's just I don't really connect with most of the things my parents have wanted me to see. I think it could also be that I don't connect with my dad's interest in WW2 in quite the same way.

    Um, why?

    Are you telling me seeing the beach at Normandy, the rows of crosses, wouldn't connect with you?
    That probably would, but I've never been there. Also, I wouldn't want to go there with anyone else. I imagine it works better as an individual experience.

    electricitylikesme on
  • DjeetDjeet Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    The only thing I care about are the produced items that have defects, not limited quantity collector's shit.

    Often in mass-produced political ephemera, newspapers, comics, stamps, coins, etc. "the produced items that have defects" are the "limited quantity collector's shit."

    Unless you were being subtley clever, then I apologize.

    As to whether Obama campaign stuff has any collectors value, well political campaign stuff has always been a pretty good collectible: meaning ephemera has a natural tendency to degrade (moreso then say pins) and the population of campaign memorabilia collectors has tended to grow. Obama being the first black/minority president probably grants his stuff a bit more cachet.

    It would come down to how much of the stuff is kept in sufficiently protected condition as to be valued by collectors and if the population of collectors of political memorabilia continues to grow. If everone drops their lawn-sign in mylar with acid-free backer boards, then there will be so much of it in the future that it might not be worth much.

    The autographed pictures and many comics and cards in my attic have little value for me other than some minor nostalgia. But I've sold or traded some of it from time to time. At this point its value to me is what I can get for it.

    Djeet on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2008
    59pb.jpg

    100% authentic 1959 Fender Precision. Everything original except for the nut.

    She's super sexy and she'd be mine if I could afford her.

    Authenticity counts here.

    Dunno about your Obama buttons though.

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.