5 ms·
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 ar
by 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 agoMy 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 agoOf 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 agoA 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.