Art

If I could produce a perfect copy of a famous work of art, could it have an equal value to the original? Furthermore, if I was then able to mix up the two items, would they then have an equal value?

Comments

A perfect copy? Wow! That would be an incredible technical achievement, requiring immensely precise matches of material composition and construction. The product of such a vast and unprecedented undertaking (were it feasible) would probably merit a price higher than any original artwork.

But suppose, as you might have intended, that such a process became commonplace and inexpensive: Titians for the masses. Then of course the original would fetch a premium over the copies. Why? Because we value artworks not only for their intrinsic features--their look, their material constitution--but for their historical features, for their being the very objects on which the artist exercised their craft. This is why prints tend to be less valuable than paintings by the same artist---they're just a bit towards the replica side of things. Does this make sense, or is it as pointless a fetish as ... saving one of Britney's cigarette butts? I don't know. But it's not only artworks that normally gain special interest for being the genuine historical products rather than replicas. Fossils are like that as well, as might also be the ring given you by your spouse. And your spouse, too, come to think of it.

If you mixed up an original and an indistinguishable copy, the two would have the same value in one sense but not in another. Same: each has the same chance, given what we can know about it, of being the original and being the replica, so there's no basis on which to prefer one to the other. Different: either of the two would surely get a higher price than any other replica, and this is because of the higher value placed on the original, and hence on even a chance of getting it rather than a replica.

Read another response by Mark Crimmins

Read another response about Art