The Original in Art

[Ghoulish Delight]

In that case, I fall back on my second statement, that the physical arts are in their viewable form out-of-the box, while performance art is created in a transitory state. The artist in the former meant for it to be viewed mainly in the form it's in not as a reproduction, while the artist in the latter meant for it to be viewed as a transitory reproduction.

That's not to say there's no value in reading a play's manuscript, or examining a piece of sheet music for yourself. Certainly one can gain greater appreciation for a director's vision if you've read the play yourself. Just as one will appreciate a painting more if you're familiar with the subject of that painting (thus the constant research to identify who exactly Mona Lisa was and her relationship to DaVinci. And The Last Supper surely would not carry the same weight if it were just Twelve Dudes Having Dinner).

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

In that case, I fall back on my second statement, that the physical arts are in their viewable form out-of-the box, while performance art is created in a transitory state.

So what is it we hope to posses with an original work? Did Andy Warhol's Factory ever produce an original? Or any of the other "masters" who had apprentices taking care of many of the "details" of their works? Is one of Monet's endless paintings of haystacks "more original" than the others? Perhaps his first? Why do Tibeten monks create mandalas in sand paintings that vanish with the first wind?

I'm curious about what makes the "original" more valuable - and also what makes an original, original.

[lizziebith]

I'm so glad you split this discussion off and carried it forth!

I do agree that there is a little something like "sympathetic magic" in addition to the aesthetic component in an "original." I'm reading an interesting book on collection ("To Have and to Hold" by Philipp Blom) which begins with a quote by Walter Benjamin: "Every passion borders on chaos, that of the collector on the chaos of memory." The book isn't specific to art collection of course, but the author suggests that possession of objects of value carries an erotic power.

Note how both Chris and I have described the experience of being in the presence of original art in sensual terms!

More later...I must think.

[€uroMeinke]

Heh - sympathetic magic has always been my favorite argument for the existence and necessity of art.