cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/questions/p/1261259/if-you-could-create-artistic-works-like-the-mona-lisa-gioconda-in-better-quality-should
I feel like I’ve been thinking about this too much in the last few days.
If you could recreate every drawing in history digitally or in better quality overall, wouldn’t your work be considered superior?
Why the hell isn’t there a nonprofit project that does this already?
I think the question is more interesting if you take out the “better quality” qualification. What does better quality even mean? That’s too subjective. I think what we’re trying to figure out is whether an original has any properties to it that a copy cannot.
Let’s say your grandma dies and leaves you something special in memory of her - a ring. Maybe it was her wedding ring and you wear it every day; it makes you feel close to her. Now say I replaced that ring with an identical copy. Does that change anything? Is there some special property imbued in the original? Does it make a difference if I tell you about the swap immediately or if you wear the “fake” for a year before finding out?
There are forgers who can make near identical copies of art. It’s illegal because no one wants a “fake.” But why? In the art world, I think it has a lot to do with exclusivity. The value is in there being only one.
It’s an interesting question that I think is highly subjective. Exclusivity could also play a part In your ring example. Was the grandmothers ring bespoke? If so, even a replica will still be “two” of a kind and I could see the sentimental attributes remaining. However if it was a mass produced item then the only special part was that it was hers, which the replica has lost.
I personally am OK with digitising photographs, and sometimes even pictures of items, because the memoroes they spark are most important to me, however a physical object definitely does have an extra kick if it’s special enough.
In the end sentiment is not very logical, and I think because of that we can never have a true answer.