11 ms·

These ones are not.

Dylan16807 4y ago
150 of the exact same model, among huge piles of other models. I don't want to argue about word choice. In the distinction I was describing, however imperfectly worded, watches like this easily go on the bulk side of the line.
- Hellion 4y ago
  No, they don’t. And you won’t find many watch enthusiasts who agree with you either about this class of watch.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    I drew a line. It goes on that side of the line I drew. > And you won’t find many watch enthusiasts who agree with you either about this class of watch. What specifically would they disagree with? The idea that these 150 watches are made in bulk to a single design, and that watches of this class have many closely related designs? Or something I said that wasn't watch-specific? If they're not made in bulk that's extremely interesting to me. Would that be like old guns that didn't have interchangeable parts, each one carefully and individually refined by expert hand to fit together? More so? Less so? How much variance is there between pieces? (I'd guess many old watches are like that but I haven't heard so specifically.)
    - bowsamic 4y ago
      To me it seems in bad faith to use a word that draws a line in a roughly agreed upon place, and then claim you have freedom to place that line wherever you want, and thus are always correct in asserting that it is "made in bulk". Using your argument, you could claim that 1, or even 0 watches are "made in bulk", or that 30C is "cold" bc you draw the line of "cold" at 40C, etc. Throwing away all understanding of concepts that has ever existed in order to win this one point seems pointless to me
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        Well it's not bad faith if I'm accidentally somewhat unclear. Like, I could say something completely objective like "100 for watches" if that's better, and it would be impossible to argue about whether 150 is more or less than 100. If I'm wrong about the production of 150 watches having some quality, argue about that quality, no need to argue about broader categories in a completely abstract way while introducing no other examples. For your analogy, if I say a temperature is cold so we shouldn't do some activity, let's talk about that activity and how the temperature affects it, not how we categorize temperatures.
        Sporktacular 4y ago
        I think he's disagreeing with the arbitrariness of where you're drawing lines to make your argument sound more reasonable. And he's free to argue his way. Mass production already has a definition and I'm pretty sure significant manual work goes into each copy. But this is beside the point. Regardless of how many copies are made, the creativity and ingenuity that went into the first one alone makes it something marvellous. Jaquet-Droz only made one handwriting automaton boy. But if he made 150 it would still be a contribution to human endeavour and I'm glad for that.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Manual work goes into each copy, manual artistry less so. So it's true that I should classify batches of 100+ and mass production quite differently. Along with pure one-offs and batches under five. But my original point still applies. I think these different quantities should be treated quite differently in terms of how art can be very expensive. In your other comment you said: Finally, quantity is irrelevant to whether something is classified as art. My point was that the fact that it was created at all is meaningful and valuable. It's art, very good art, but it's also far short of 150 artistically different watches. Almost everything is art at some level, but the amount that the artistry should affect price depends on production quantities and methods. Most of the artistry here is one piece.
        4y ago
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Does art cease being art because the artist created plates and created 100 prints before it wears out? Is that less art than a painting?
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Does art cease being art because the artist created plates and created 100 prints before it wears out? Is that less art than a painting? Of course not. It's just as much an art. But those prints shouldn't be priced with the same premium that a single original often has.
  - brtknr 4y ago
    It should be priced at the maximum value someone is willing to pay for it… and naturally in market economy it often will. The Artist needs to also make a living and not all of their artwork will sell at earth shattering prices. It seems just as arbitrary to limit the price of the item to a fraction of the value of a single item. I do wish more art was auctioned rather than come with a fixed price tag to make the market more fluid and less egotistical.
  - lmm 4y ago
    The art world seems to think so.
- emsixteen 4y ago
  Imagine thinking that there's 150 of a watch means its mass produced.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Imagine thinking You don't have to mock me for using the wrong word. I hope you realize it's my vocabulary having a slight issue here, and not my understanding of the world, right?
    - emsixteen 4y ago
      Your vocabulary isn't at fault, nothing to do with that at all, it's that you think 150 of a watch is in some way mass produced.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        I had an incorrect sense of when to use the term "mass". It's vocabulary.
        emsixteen 4y ago
        What weird hill are you trying to die on here? You're saying that 150 of a watch means it's mass-produced, ie that there's a heap of them, that they're made en masse, in bulk, whatever terminology you want to use. You understand that because it's exactly what you were getting at. The point is that 150 of them is still bugger all.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        150 copies of something is enough that it's extremely different from making one or two copies. Isn't that obvious? It doesn't matter if they're both "bugger all" compared to some arbitrary threshold. It's a huge difference in scale and methodology. There's more than two categories here! And I don't know why you think I'm trying to die on a hill, the only downvoted comment in the chain is your first one...
- SergeAx 4y ago
  Several works of Pissarro, Munch, Matisse, Picasso, Miro et cetera are in museums in a single copy. MOST of their work are in private collections in a numbered signed lithographs.

These ones are not.

150 of the exact same model, among huge piles of other models. I don't want to argue about word choice. In the distinction I was describing, however imperfectly worded, watches like this easily go on the bulk side of the line.

Hellion 4y ago
No, they don’t. And you won’t find many watch enthusiasts who agree with you either about this class of watch.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  I drew a line. It goes on that side of the line I drew. > And you won’t find many watch enthusiasts who agree with you either about this class of watch. What specifically would they disagree with? The idea that these 150 watches are made in bulk to a single design, and that watches of this class have many closely related designs? Or something I said that wasn't watch-specific? If they're not made in bulk that's extremely interesting to me. Would that be like old guns that didn't have interchangeable parts, each one carefully and individually refined by expert hand to fit together? More so? Less so? How much variance is there between pieces? (I'd guess many old watches are like that but I haven't heard so specifically.)
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    To me it seems in bad faith to use a word that draws a line in a roughly agreed upon place, and then claim you have freedom to place that line wherever you want, and thus are always correct in asserting that it is "made in bulk". Using your argument, you could claim that 1, or even 0 watches are "made in bulk", or that 30C is "cold" bc you draw the line of "cold" at 40C, etc. Throwing away all understanding of concepts that has ever existed in order to win this one point seems pointless to me
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      Well it's not bad faith if I'm accidentally somewhat unclear. Like, I could say something completely objective like "100 for watches" if that's better, and it would be impossible to argue about whether 150 is more or less than 100. If I'm wrong about the production of 150 watches having some quality, argue about that quality, no need to argue about broader categories in a completely abstract way while introducing no other examples. For your analogy, if I say a temperature is cold so we shouldn't do some activity, let's talk about that activity and how the temperature affects it, not how we categorize temperatures.
      - Sporktacular 4y ago
        I think he's disagreeing with the arbitrariness of where you're drawing lines to make your argument sound more reasonable. And he's free to argue his way. Mass production already has a definition and I'm pretty sure significant manual work goes into each copy. But this is beside the point. Regardless of how many copies are made, the creativity and ingenuity that went into the first one alone makes it something marvellous. Jaquet-Droz only made one handwriting automaton boy. But if he made 150 it would still be a contribution to human endeavour and I'm glad for that.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Manual work goes into each copy, manual artistry less so. So it's true that I should classify batches of 100+ and mass production quite differently. Along with pure one-offs and batches under five. But my original point still applies. I think these different quantities should be treated quite differently in terms of how art can be very expensive. In your other comment you said: Finally, quantity is irrelevant to whether something is classified as art. My point was that the fact that it was created at all is meaningful and valuable. It's art, very good art, but it's also far short of 150 artistically different watches. Almost everything is art at some level, but the amount that the artistry should affect price depends on production quantities and methods. Most of the artistry here is one piece.
        4y ago
HWR_14 4y ago
Does art cease being art because the artist created plates and created 100 prints before it wears out? Is that less art than a painting?
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Does art cease being art because the artist created plates and created 100 prints before it wears out? Is that less art than a painting? Of course not. It's just as much an art. But those prints shouldn't be priced with the same premium that a single original often has.
- brtknr 4y ago
  It should be priced at the maximum value someone is willing to pay for it… and naturally in market economy it often will. The Artist needs to also make a living and not all of their artwork will sell at earth shattering prices. It seems just as arbitrary to limit the price of the item to a fraction of the value of a single item. I do wish more art was auctioned rather than come with a fixed price tag to make the market more fluid and less egotistical.
- lmm 4y ago
  The art world seems to think so.
emsixteen 4y ago
Imagine thinking that there's 150 of a watch means its mass produced.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Imagine thinking You don't have to mock me for using the wrong word. I hope you realize it's my vocabulary having a slight issue here, and not my understanding of the world, right?
  - emsixteen 4y ago
    Your vocabulary isn't at fault, nothing to do with that at all, it's that you think 150 of a watch is in some way mass produced.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      I had an incorrect sense of when to use the term "mass". It's vocabulary.
      - emsixteen 4y ago
        What weird hill are you trying to die on here? You're saying that 150 of a watch means it's mass-produced, ie that there's a heap of them, that they're made en masse, in bulk, whatever terminology you want to use. You understand that because it's exactly what you were getting at. The point is that 150 of them is still bugger all.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        150 copies of something is enough that it's extremely different from making one or two copies. Isn't that obvious? It doesn't matter if they're both "bugger all" compared to some arbitrary threshold. It's a huge difference in scale and methodology. There's more than two categories here! And I don't know why you think I'm trying to die on a hill, the only downvoted comment in the chain is your first one...
SergeAx 4y ago
Several works of Pissarro, Munch, Matisse, Picasso, Miro et cetera are in museums in a single copy. MOST of their work are in private collections in a numbered signed lithographs.