Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Irony

   

   Oliver Wendell Jones, May 27th, 2004 @ 11:38am

   
   

   Ironically enough, the painting is now probably worth something because of it's notoriety...

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Ebay doing anything

   

   jim, May 27th, 2004 @ 12:22pm

   
   

   It is a miracle that anyone prodded ebay to do anything about a nonperforming vendor. I am pursuing one now, and get nothing but routine idiot replies from them and they still let the scammer have 20 auctions active at any given time.
   
   It is very frustrating to see the scams allowed to run out of control when they could extinguish them when they are at the low level that the current scammer I am dealing with is operating.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Art Value

   

   DL, May 28th, 2004 @ 6:56am

   
   

   I sometimes try to argue this with people: if I could take a famous painting like the Mona Lisa, and had a machine that could reproduce it down to the molecular level, so that it was completely indistinguishable from the original (i.e. the same texture of the brush strokes, the same exact pigments, the same imperfections and cracks) would it still be awe-inspiring to look at it? Would it have the same artistic value? I argue that it does... perhaps not the same historic value... but definitely the same artistic value. For example, a copy of a Shakespeare play, even one that is typed on a computer, is considered to have the same artistic value as an original handwritten manuscript. Amusingly enough, many people argue with me that the two examples (reproducing a painting and reproducing a play) are very different and that my molecular-level-reproducing-machine would create replicas that do NOT have the same artistic value. I say these people are having trouble distinguishing between artistic value and monetary value.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Art Value

   

   Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2004 @ 8:12am

   
   

   I suppose that would explain why paintings usually get more valuable over time. They aren't getting any better looking, but as they age they become more historically significant and thus more valuable.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: Art Value

   

   Frank Davis, Jan 25th, 2005 @ 2:50pm

   
   

   I am the CEO of a company that makes art replicas. I am also the person responsible for the production of the replica. Great artwork has a metaphysical characteristic that can not be reproduced. There is an exchange of energy between the viewer and the artist. The best way to describe it is like the difference between a live concert and a recording. The recording or replica is good and it can be enjoyed for what it is, but it can never replace an original.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment