Interpreting origin in this sense,
save perhaps the universe itself, nothing has an origin --
it always arises as part of some already ongoing processes.
Many artforms produce physical objects which have uniqueness,
and in the culture they inhabit they can be seen to be irreplacable.
This is unlike say a coin, which in ordinary usage, is interchangeable
with any other of the same denomination. In the case of the coin
this works because they all denote the same amount of money.
The issue with the digital somehow involves the way
the thing is unique but all its physical
representations (sense 2 not 3 below) are interchangable with each other.
As in music we can distinguish (1) a composition itself
(2) a copy of the score (3) a performance. These are
(1) the data itself (2) a physical copy of the data e.g. on a CD
(3) a rendering of the image on a particular piece of paper
or a particular screen.
John
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, kate barsby wrote:
> The notion of a physical art object being original is questionable.
>
> The physical art object or event (drawing, novel, dance), is not the exact
> point of origin. The physical embodiment (via skilled labour) is an
> interpretation of an idea (data). Is the art object merely a bi-product of a
> thought.
>
> Is groundlessness is in the mind.
|