![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I disagree with pretty much this entire article from New Republic: While I can appreciate conserving original artworks and manuscripts for research purposes, and I can appreciate the fascination with the actual artifact that’s been around for centuries, I think that far from reproduction destroying the soul of art, art and texts need to be copied, passed on, rewritten and adapted in order to remain living.
I also suspect, though I’d have to consult with real historians, that the cult of the original only appeared once mechanical copying methods became common and accurate (the essay the author of the article references was written in the mid-1930s). If it takes as long to produce a good copy as it did to make the original book or artwork, then the copy is just as valuable (in the monetary as well as the cultural sense) as the original, and no one worries that everybody will be able to get their hands on one. Basically, in the Curatorial vs Transformative fandom fight, I’m on the side of Transformative.
Meanwhile, an artist in Germany is trying to fill a corner of a 7,000-year-old salt mine with shelf-stable (as in engraved ceramic tile) copies of digital stuff, for the benefit of alien/very distant future human archaeologists: . Since they’re derived from digital files these aren’t “originals.” They’re copies he hopes will survive.
I’ve no idea why Fritz Lang’s got a toy monkey in this photo, but it was evidently a day for bold choices. I suppose someone had to pair a monocle and a plaid flannel shirt, I just wasn’t expecting it to be an Austrian movie director in the 1920s. Lesbians need to step up their fashion game, is what I’m saying.
The chaperon is my favourite 15th-century headgear, because it’s a medieval hood flipped upside-down and tied, and (a) who was the first person to do that? and (b) how cool were they, that it caught on? Anyway, recently it seemed to me one could do the same with a hoodie, so I tried it out. It doesn’t form as dramatic a fall on one side, of course.I don't think Jan Van Eyck would be very impressed with me.
I also suspect, though I’d have to consult with real historians, that the cult of the original only appeared once mechanical copying methods became common and accurate (the essay the author of the article references was written in the mid-1930s). If it takes as long to produce a good copy as it did to make the original book or artwork, then the copy is just as valuable (in the monetary as well as the cultural sense) as the original, and no one worries that everybody will be able to get their hands on one. Basically, in the Curatorial vs Transformative fandom fight, I’m on the side of Transformative.
Meanwhile, an artist in Germany is trying to fill a corner of a 7,000-year-old salt mine with shelf-stable (as in engraved ceramic tile) copies of digital stuff, for the benefit of alien/very distant future human archaeologists: . Since they’re derived from digital files these aren’t “originals.” They’re copies he hopes will survive.
I’ve no idea why Fritz Lang’s got a toy monkey in this photo, but it was evidently a day for bold choices. I suppose someone had to pair a monocle and a plaid flannel shirt, I just wasn’t expecting it to be an Austrian movie director in the 1920s. Lesbians need to step up their fashion game, is what I’m saying.
The chaperon is my favourite 15th-century headgear, because it’s a medieval hood flipped upside-down and tied, and (a) who was the first person to do that? and (b) how cool were they, that it caught on? Anyway, recently it seemed to me one could do the same with a hoodie, so I tried it out. It doesn’t form as dramatic a fall on one side, of course.I don't think Jan Van Eyck would be very impressed with me.
no subject
Date: 2018-11-12 07:58 pm (UTC)From:Especially when the choice is between having access to a copy and not having access to the information at all. I just watched a relatively crummy DVR-to-YouTube rip of an absolutely astonishing movie. Am I sorry I saw it on YouTube as opposed to 35 mm? In the sense that a print would look a lot better and would include all of the small fine details that digital generation loss fuzzes out, yes. It would have been nice to see it another way. Would I rather have not seen it at all, holding out for the film itself which may never play near me? Hell, no. I want a legitimate DVD of the thing. I'd have settled for fuzz-less streaming. It's how I watch most of my movies. Copies are democratizing.
no subject
Date: 2018-11-12 08:01 pm (UTC)From:YES
THAT'S IT
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY
no subject
Date: 2018-11-12 08:50 pm (UTC)From:SOLIDARITY GLAD TO HELP
no subject
Date: 2018-11-12 08:57 pm (UTC)From: