4 ms·
Suppose I own a piece-of-art and a copy. I swap molecules between them gradually, until the original no longer has any of its original molecules, and the copy h
by calibraxis 12y ago
Suppose I own a piece-of-art and a copy. I swap molecules between them gradually, until the original no longer has any of its original molecules, and the copy has them all.
Which is the piece-of-art?
The art world probably has bizarre ideologies because they serve as investments and status symbols to elite patrons/customers. (And while the artist lives, they'd like to get paid. But our world isn't dominated by artists, so their subsistence isn't considered as important.)
- mlvljr 12y agoAnother communist!
- jckt 12y agoI don't think your description of copying is particularly useful regarding physical art, as that type of "replicator" technology (molecule switching) is far, far away. In reality copies are, well, never so completely identical (far from it). Of course whether or not one can actually detect the differences is another matter, and at which level of detection one is required to differentiate copy from original is necessary is yet another. What do you think about museums -- a public institution that is more or less the antithesis of your view of the art world? Without going into semantics, let's say you have a genuinely old artefact. Now someone comes along and makes a replica. Let's say they're virtually identical, and the only difference is in the carbon dating, which you can't really fake. Which one should be admitted into the museum?