As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Authenticity: should we care?
Qingu
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
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.
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
0
Posts
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.
but they're listening to every word I say
A few decades ago a certain record might have sentimental value: "this is the record I listened to when I met
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.
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.
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.
The newspapers, on the other hand, have already jumped nearly 1000% in price, and are only likely to rise.
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.
But yeah. What he said.
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.
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.
If only he'd picked Rahm. Nobody would dare assassinate Obama for fear of the next in line. It worked wonders for Bush.
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?
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.
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.
Can you think of anybody who both dislikes Bush and thinks that a Cheney presidency wouldn't end in federally mandated goat sacrifice?
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.
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.
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
I think people will just spend money to say they have something that others don't.
I often think about this. I never really understood the appeal.
Um, why?
Are you telling me seeing the beach at Normandy, the rows of crosses, wouldn't connect with you?
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.
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.
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.