[ExI] THE MIGHTY ORIGINAL

[x at extropica.org]

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:32 PM, PJ Manney <pjmanney at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.  ;-)

Against my better judgment I reenter the perennial identity debates.

The value of the "original", whether an object of art or a human
agent, is based entirely on perceived status--very real in terms of
our evolutionarily derived nature and cultural context but nothing
intrinsic. Yes, the history may be important information, but it's NOT
a property of the object.  The meaning of anything lies not in what it
"is", but in what it does, as perceived in relation to the values of
some observer, even when it is the observer.

We see through the eyes of our ancestors, for valid evolutionary
reasons, just as our present system of social decision-making is based
on competition over scarcity rather than cooperation for abundance;
artwork and jewelry are prized more for their rarity than for their
capacity to inspire; and the "self" is considered discrete and
essential despite the synergistic advantages of diverse agency acting
on behalf of an entirely fictitious entity.

Recognizing this is not to diminish the assumed "intrinsic" value of
the art or the person, but to open up new opportunities for meaningful
interaction with what is ultimately only perceived patterns of
information.

- Jef