[ExI] THE MIGHTY ORIGINAL

PJ Manney pjmanney at gmail.com
Mon Nov 1 20:32:47 UTC 2010


On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> When nanotech arrives, capable of replicating the most distinctive and rare
> items, this upheaval will happen again. Have you ever seen a real van Gogh?
> The thick raised edges of the paint, catching the light differently from
> different angles? Next to that, printed reproductions are dull, faithless
> traitors. If nano makes it possible to compile an exact copy in three
> dimensions, only the fourth will be lost--and that irretrievably, except to
> the most extreme tests. We'll see increasingly what we have seen as
> avant-garde for a century: evanescent art, performance, destruction of an
> art work after its creation. And in addition, a widespread downward
> revaluation of originals *of the art-work kind*.

I agree with Damien on most of his post.  However, I disagree on the
downward revaluation.  Let me add something from my own experience
raised in the art world.

Right now, you can buy copies of famous works of art, made with oil,
"painted" on canvas.  For about $300, I can have a "handmade" and same
size oil copy of Van Gogh's Starry Night:
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Vincent-Van-Gogh/Starry-Night.html
They don't diminish Van Gogh's original one bit.

It boils down to one word: provenance.  It's the most important aspect
determining value in a piece AFTER rarity/culturally agreed value.
Nanofabbing affects rarity.  It doesn't affect provenance.  And it
doesn't even have to apply to art.  If I clean out my attic, the items
go to the trash bin or Goodwill.  When they cleaned out Marilyn
Monroe's attic, even her x-rays were valuable.
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/06/28/2010-06-28_marilyn_monroes_chest_xray_from_1954_sells_for_45000_at_las_vegas_auction.html

The auctioned contents of Jackie Kennedy Onassis' attic (she
apparently threw nothing away) brought a total of $50 million to her
estate.  Even if I owned the exact same triple-strand pearl necklace,
rocking chair and fountain pens, you can bet mine wouldn't!  And why
should it?  The buyers were purchasing history.  Not jewelry,
furniture or office supplies.

Provenance has an important place in the art market.  Your nanomade
Van Gogh may look as good as the real thing, but was it owned by an
established lineage, from the hand of Vincent, to his brother/dealer
Theo, to the Van Gogh family and dealers to MOMA?
http://www.moma.org/collection/provenance/provenance_object.php?object_id=79802

Or how about this Paul Gauguin masterpiece, owned by fellow artist Edgar Degas?
http://www.moma.org/collection/provenance/provenance_object.php?object_id=78621

Or Picasso's famous portrait of Gertrude Stein, given in her will to
the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  That's as good a provenance as you're
going to find!
http://wings.buffalo.edu/english/faculty/conte/syllabi/377/Images/Ray_Stein.jpg
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/arts/12iht-melik12.html

I don't care how many portraits of Stein you're going to make in your
nanofabber.  The history of the original in the Met, held in Picasso's
and Stein's hands and so important in art history, can't be replicated
and will retain its value -- as long as no one mixes the two up and
there are people with the ego to stoke and means to own it.  ;-)

PJ



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list