6 ms·

An art historian friend of mine explained to me one thing that could be part of the explanation. He said that in the East, what is valuable in art is the perfec

by mikk14 5y ago

An art historian friend of mine explained to me one thing that could be part of the explanation. He said that in the East, what is valuable in art is the perfection of the human movement and technique, not the actual output artifact. For instance, if you were to burn down the Monna Lisa, from a westerner perspective you have destroyed all that was valuable in the art. From an easterner perspective, you can reproduce the painting, as long as you prepare the materials in the same way and you use the exact same techniques that were used in composing the original. At that point, whatever you output, is exactly the same as the original and has exactly the same dignity. Same with rebuilding a temple. As long as you use the same materials and the same building technique, even if it was burned to the ground originally it's still the same building. The craft is fundamental, the artifact is incidental: it is just an embodiment of the craft. No idea whether it is true, but it's interesting.

howaboutnope 5y ago
> My life's work is not what I've made, it's who I am when I sit in front of a blank file. If I lost everything, I would have lost nothing. -- Kroc Camen
rytis 5y ago
> At that point, whatever you output, is exactly the same as the original and has exactly the same dignity. Except that it's not made by a specific person who lived 100's of years ago. That is impossible to restore, no matter what. I get the idea of art being human movement, but I'm wondering if what's valued in the west is the act of movement by specific individual rather than the output artefact?
- croon 5y ago
  Could you tell the difference between the original and a well made replica of the Mona Lisa? I absolutely couldn't. I get what you're saying, and I understand why we (in the west at least) believe it matters, but should it, really?
  - WelcomeShorty 5y ago
    It is part of the perceived importance. My wife's an (western :) ) artist and I have spend uncountable hours discussing exactly this subject with her and her artists friends. Even if you could not see / proof the one picture being the real one, their believe is rock solid that the original has higher (emotional) value. The idea that the original hand, in the original moment, with the original intentions made one object and the not the other, is of paramount importance. YMMV.
    - croon 5y ago
      My art of preference is mostly music (and secondly film), and I'm of the same persuasion as those you describe when it comes to an original song. But I always attributed that to my percieved ability to hear the soulful intent of the original artist in the performence, whether by voice or by instrument. I may be fooling myself there, but I at least find it more plausible there than in, say, a painting. I absolutely understand their viewpoint, even if I may not believe it myself.
    - bbarnett 5y ago
      Of course that is important to artists. We all have egos, and their hand, the creator's hand, has more value to them. Yet, this does not mean the viewer shall have the same perspective. For them, the stimulus, not the source, may be more important.
      - dagw 5y ago
        A history buff going to a museum and seeing the sword carried by a famous general in a famous battle that they have read all about will means something very different than seeing an identical sword from the same time period that was just found in an old storage facility. The historical artifact aspect of art is quite similar and to many people equally important.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    An expert could. Pigments change with time. In a rebuilt temple there is an artistic value, but the main interest is not there. Is in the occupation of the place. "We were able to fight against the countless attempts of other people willing to displace us and use the soil in their own interests. This proves that we are a strong and successful community". Behind the art lies a political game and a fight for power. Everything else is replaceable. In fact improving the place is a basic strategy to keep the appeal to the public what pays for this and rebuild ASAP is essential to keep the place in the same hands and the money flowing. Paintings like the Mona Lisa are powerful in a more subtle way. Can't be linked directly with political parties or kingdoms; Is just an anonymous woman. The main theme here is celebrating femininity. So is much more powerful than "just another Buda statue bigger than those from Shelbyville". Unlike a local religion Mona Lisa can connect easily with the entire humanity. Old paintings can be symbols of power also, but people normally don't give the same value to "this wall of the room has been always occupied by identical copies of a painting of a woman in the last 1000 years". A photo does not have the same value as a painting.
cybersol 5y ago
Thanks for the perspective. The closest western way of thinking to be is, "It is not the about the destination but the journey". The whole concept also reminds me of Eckhart Tolle's "Life is the dancer and you are the dance?", which is a very different way of thinking about yourself as the changing and moving thing instead of a fixed person.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > The closest western way of thinking to be is, "It is not the about the destination but the journey" For the Mona Lisa, I think favoring the original is caring about the journey. You can use the same techniques but you can never recreate the circumstances the painting was made in. In the dichotomy of destination and journey, using the same craft to recreate a centuries-old portrait gets you something like an A for destination but a D+ for journey. For a temple, the craftsmanship is probably a bigger part of the journey, but it's still only a part.
bvm 5y ago
The genius of the Mona Lisa is not the craft. It's not a photorealistic interpretation of the sitter. Everything about it is to be viewed through the lens of da Vinci. It's a window into the world at that time; even though it's completely different period it's almost achingly _human_. The value of the Mona Lisa is not in its materials or craft, it's in its influence over hundreds of years and the millions it has inspired. edit: this is obviously my Western interpretation, informed by culture/upbringing/milieux etc. So it's interesting to hear a divergent view. Obviously I don't think my POV is objectively true but I do think it holds value.
- cwizou 5y ago
  I think that this is also part of the craft/craftmanship, it's not just the tools but the knowledge and inspiration to use them, to express something. It's that entire package that's more valuable than the end resulting physical object. Do we get part of that vision/window of the world from a high resolution digital reproduction of the painting? Could we get most of it from a (very good) replica too? Would most people know the difference if we swapped the original for a replica in Le Louvre? Or let's say the painting gets damaged and restored by artists. Did we lose that vision?
- mikk14 5y ago
  Craft in painting is very different from how supposedly well a painter reproduces reality. Whatever I said also applies to non-figurative painting as well, say Mondrian or Kandinsky. In fact, it applies to any form of art that has nothing to do with reproducing reality. The underlying philosophy beneath "art is the craft" is that, if you follow the craft, you are seeing the world through the lens of da Vinci. I do agree with much of your final statement, by the way. What the Monna Lisa has done for art an humanity through all those centuries is irreplaceable. That would not go away if the painting were to burn today, so it's not a point in favor of considering the artifact as more important than the craft. In fact, the best way to preserve its potential future influence would be to store the technique to reproduce it perfectly, rather than the object itself or a photograph of it. Because people undergoing the process of recreating the painting as da Vinci did it would get knowledge and inspiration in the process.
bayindirh 5y ago
> Same with rebuilding a temple. As long as you use the same materials and the same building technique, even if it was burned to the ground originally it's still the same building. When I visited South Korea, I was amazed that how some pavilions in palace complexes are destroyed, burnt, stolen in entirety, repeatedly and rebuilt. Their attitude was "things happen. we just rebuild them, eh?".
- Aeolun 5y ago
  Haha, yeah, I remember somewhere in Japan there’s also a temple with an information sign that casually lists the years in which it was burnt down and rebuild a bunch of times. Actually, I imagine that’s true for a whole lot more than one temple.
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    It seems Japan and South Korea was pretty unfriendly against each other in the past, to put it mildly. :) Addendum: Hey, this is an impression I got from Palace Complex Pavilions' information cards. I have nothing against either nation.
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      I don’t think the problem people have is this observation. It’s verifiably true. It’s just not super relevant to the point at hand.
  - dandellion 5y ago
    Also in Japan there's this temple that they rebuild every 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise_Grand_Shrine#Rebuilding_the_Shrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise_Grand_Shrine#Rebuilding_th...
OneTimePetes 5y ago
And that philosophy maps down to the artist- the artist is a tool, s/he is replaceable with a thousand others, given enough training. There is no individual spark, burning only in one mind, producing something that exceeds previous known art or artifacts. This mindset is a trap and holding back a whole region.
iNic 5y ago
There are shrines in japan that have been rebuilt every 20 years for over 1000 years - and they are still considered the same shrine. This definitely seems to coincide with this idea.
INGELRII 5y ago
The corollary of all of this is that copying, mimicry and imitation is not lesser art. Historically Asian artists and musicians imitated master's styles. Only after you are fully mastering the previous style, you can add something little of your own. "Confucian notion that all forms of creativity are for the collective; any copying or imitating is a high form of flattery, honoring one’s ancestors" [1] This can extend to intellectual property and copying in industrial production. Making copies of products of others is seen very differently in China "Mutual reliance and sharing for the good of all have been most important for centuries in China, quite unlike the American belief of ownership of copyright and prot protection for the copyright holder."[1] "Intellectual property rights also do not show up in philosophical works or in literature, because of the general belief that knowledge cannot be owned. As we have seen, copying was a virtue in artistic production, and profiting from knowledge and artistic production was immoral." [2] --- [1] The Dissonance between Culture and Intellectual Property in China. Southeast Review of Asian Studies . 2008, Vol. 30, p182-187. 6p. [2] Intellectual Property Rights and Chinese Tradition Section: Philosophical Foundations. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Nov., 2006), pp. 1-9 (9 pages)
- bsenftner 5y ago
  East/West cultural differences are very fascinating. I wonder if wider spread knowledge of this cultural disregard for intellectual property would have impacted the Western Capitalist drive to "crack the East". I am probably a bit older than most readers here on HN, being 57; I remember during the 70's a major American business initiative being trying to establish business operations in the "newly opened China". A great book about that era is "China Man", a book covering the multiple attempts and failures by American business to capitalize on China's new openness during the 70's and 80's due to gross cultural misunderstandings on both sides.
- slightwinder 5y ago
  > Historically Asian artists and musicians imitated master's styles. Only after you are fully mastering the previous style, you can add something little of your own. Yet there is a huge amount of poor imitations coming from Asia... Imitations are a good way to learn, but they don't make you the master, just (maybe) some master. Imitation doesn't let you learn the reasoning behind the process that leads to the result you imitate.
scandox 5y ago
Borges made a funny investigation of this idea in the realm of literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Menard,_Author_of_the_Quixote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Menard,_Author_of_the_Q...

by mikk14 5y ago

howaboutnope 5y ago

> My life's work is not what I've made, it's who I am when I sit in front of a blank file. If I lost everything, I would have lost nothing. -- Kroc Camen

rytis 5y ago

> At that point, whatever you output, is exactly the same as the original and has exactly the same dignity. Except that it's not made by a specific person who lived 100's of years ago. That is impossible to restore, no matter what. I get the idea of art being human movement, but I'm wondering if what's valued in the west is the act of movement by specific individual rather than the output artefact?

croon 5y ago
Could you tell the difference between the original and a well made replica of the Mona Lisa? I absolutely couldn't. I get what you're saying, and I understand why we (in the west at least) believe it matters, but should it, really?
- WelcomeShorty 5y ago
  It is part of the perceived importance. My wife's an (western :) ) artist and I have spend uncountable hours discussing exactly this subject with her and her artists friends. Even if you could not see / proof the one picture being the real one, their believe is rock solid that the original has higher (emotional) value. The idea that the original hand, in the original moment, with the original intentions made one object and the not the other, is of paramount importance. YMMV.
  - croon 5y ago
    My art of preference is mostly music (and secondly film), and I'm of the same persuasion as those you describe when it comes to an original song. But I always attributed that to my percieved ability to hear the soulful intent of the original artist in the performence, whether by voice or by instrument. I may be fooling myself there, but I at least find it more plausible there than in, say, a painting. I absolutely understand their viewpoint, even if I may not believe it myself.
  - bbarnett 5y ago
    Of course that is important to artists. We all have egos, and their hand, the creator's hand, has more value to them. Yet, this does not mean the viewer shall have the same perspective. For them, the stimulus, not the source, may be more important.
    - dagw 5y ago
      A history buff going to a museum and seeing the sword carried by a famous general in a famous battle that they have read all about will means something very different than seeing an identical sword from the same time period that was just found in an old storage facility. The historical artifact aspect of art is quite similar and to many people equally important.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  An expert could. Pigments change with time. In a rebuilt temple there is an artistic value, but the main interest is not there. Is in the occupation of the place. "We were able to fight against the countless attempts of other people willing to displace us and use the soil in their own interests. This proves that we are a strong and successful community". Behind the art lies a political game and a fight for power. Everything else is replaceable. In fact improving the place is a basic strategy to keep the appeal to the public what pays for this and rebuild ASAP is essential to keep the place in the same hands and the money flowing. Paintings like the Mona Lisa are powerful in a more subtle way. Can't be linked directly with political parties or kingdoms; Is just an anonymous woman. The main theme here is celebrating femininity. So is much more powerful than "just another Buda statue bigger than those from Shelbyville". Unlike a local religion Mona Lisa can connect easily with the entire humanity. Old paintings can be symbols of power also, but people normally don't give the same value to "this wall of the room has been always occupied by identical copies of a painting of a woman in the last 1000 years". A photo does not have the same value as a painting.

cybersol 5y ago

Thanks for the perspective. The closest western way of thinking to be is, "It is not the about the destination but the journey". The whole concept also reminds me of Eckhart Tolle's "Life is the dancer and you are the dance?", which is a very different way of thinking about yourself as the changing and moving thing instead of a fixed person.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> The closest western way of thinking to be is, "It is not the about the destination but the journey" For the Mona Lisa, I think favoring the original is caring about the journey. You can use the same techniques but you can never recreate the circumstances the painting was made in. In the dichotomy of destination and journey, using the same craft to recreate a centuries-old portrait gets you something like an A for destination but a D+ for journey. For a temple, the craftsmanship is probably a bigger part of the journey, but it's still only a part.

bvm 5y ago

The genius of the Mona Lisa is not the craft. It's not a photorealistic interpretation of the sitter. Everything about it is to be viewed through the lens of da Vinci. It's a window into the world at that time; even though it's completely different period it's almost achingly _human_. The value of the Mona Lisa is not in its materials or craft, it's in its influence over hundreds of years and the millions it has inspired. edit: this is obviously my Western interpretation, informed by culture/upbringing/milieux etc. So it's interesting to hear a divergent view. Obviously I don't think my POV is objectively true but I do think it holds value.

cwizou 5y ago
I think that this is also part of the craft/craftmanship, it's not just the tools but the knowledge and inspiration to use them, to express something. It's that entire package that's more valuable than the end resulting physical object. Do we get part of that vision/window of the world from a high resolution digital reproduction of the painting? Could we get most of it from a (very good) replica too? Would most people know the difference if we swapped the original for a replica in Le Louvre? Or let's say the painting gets damaged and restored by artists. Did we lose that vision?
mikk14 5y ago
Craft in painting is very different from how supposedly well a painter reproduces reality. Whatever I said also applies to non-figurative painting as well, say Mondrian or Kandinsky. In fact, it applies to any form of art that has nothing to do with reproducing reality. The underlying philosophy beneath "art is the craft" is that, if you follow the craft, you are seeing the world through the lens of da Vinci. I do agree with much of your final statement, by the way. What the Monna Lisa has done for art an humanity through all those centuries is irreplaceable. That would not go away if the painting were to burn today, so it's not a point in favor of considering the artifact as more important than the craft. In fact, the best way to preserve its potential future influence would be to store the technique to reproduce it perfectly, rather than the object itself or a photograph of it. Because people undergoing the process of recreating the painting as da Vinci did it would get knowledge and inspiration in the process.

bayindirh 5y ago

> Same with rebuilding a temple. As long as you use the same materials and the same building technique, even if it was burned to the ground originally it's still the same building. When I visited South Korea, I was amazed that how some pavilions in palace complexes are destroyed, burnt, stolen in entirety, repeatedly and rebuilt. Their attitude was "things happen. we just rebuild them, eh?".

Aeolun 5y ago
Haha, yeah, I remember somewhere in Japan there’s also a temple with an information sign that casually lists the years in which it was burnt down and rebuild a bunch of times. Actually, I imagine that’s true for a whole lot more than one temple.
- bayindirh 5y ago
  It seems Japan and South Korea was pretty unfriendly against each other in the past, to put it mildly. :) Addendum: Hey, this is an impression I got from Palace Complex Pavilions' information cards. I have nothing against either nation.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    I don’t think the problem people have is this observation. It’s verifiably true. It’s just not super relevant to the point at hand.
- dandellion 5y ago
  Also in Japan there's this temple that they rebuild every 20 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise_Grand_Shrine#Rebuilding_the_Shrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise_Grand_Shrine#Rebuilding_th...

OneTimePetes 5y ago

And that philosophy maps down to the artist- the artist is a tool, s/he is replaceable with a thousand others, given enough training. There is no individual spark, burning only in one mind, producing something that exceeds previous known art or artifacts. This mindset is a trap and holding back a whole region.

iNic 5y ago

There are shrines in japan that have been rebuilt every 20 years for over 1000 years - and they are still considered the same shrine. This definitely seems to coincide with this idea.

INGELRII 5y ago

The corollary of all of this is that copying, mimicry and imitation is not lesser art. Historically Asian artists and musicians imitated master's styles. Only after you are fully mastering the previous style, you can add something little of your own. "Confucian notion that all forms of creativity are for the collective; any copying or imitating is a high form of flattery, honoring one’s ancestors" [1] This can extend to intellectual property and copying in industrial production. Making copies of products of others is seen very differently in China "Mutual reliance and sharing for the good of all have been most important for centuries in China, quite unlike the American belief of ownership of copyright and prot protection for the copyright holder."[1] "Intellectual property rights also do not show up in philosophical works or in literature, because of the general belief that knowledge cannot be owned. As we have seen, copying was a virtue in artistic production, and profiting from knowledge and artistic production was immoral." [2] --- [1] The Dissonance between Culture and Intellectual Property in China. Southeast Review of Asian Studies . 2008, Vol. 30, p182-187. 6p. [2] Intellectual Property Rights and Chinese Tradition Section: Philosophical Foundations. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Nov., 2006), pp. 1-9 (9 pages)

bsenftner 5y ago
East/West cultural differences are very fascinating. I wonder if wider spread knowledge of this cultural disregard for intellectual property would have impacted the Western Capitalist drive to "crack the East". I am probably a bit older than most readers here on HN, being 57; I remember during the 70's a major American business initiative being trying to establish business operations in the "newly opened China". A great book about that era is "China Man", a book covering the multiple attempts and failures by American business to capitalize on China's new openness during the 70's and 80's due to gross cultural misunderstandings on both sides.
slightwinder 5y ago
> Historically Asian artists and musicians imitated master's styles. Only after you are fully mastering the previous style, you can add something little of your own. Yet there is a huge amount of poor imitations coming from Asia... Imitations are a good way to learn, but they don't make you the master, just (maybe) some master. Imitation doesn't let you learn the reasoning behind the process that leads to the result you imitate.

scandox 5y ago

Borges made a funny investigation of this idea in the realm of literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Menard,_Author_of_the_Quixote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Menard,_Author_of_the_Q...