> Interpreting origin in this sense,
> save perhaps the universe itself, nothing has an origin --
> it always arises as part of some already ongoing processes.
Pedantically perhaps: the universe has no origin: an absolute orign was
rejected by physics, specifically Einstien, in the early 20th century
when the aether was dismissed as a bogus concept.
(This is way relativity is called so.)
> 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.
This is true, but does not prove digital media is fundamentally different
from anything else. Seems to me that differences are relative. Also seems
to me that Art has no defintion,likewise seems to me groundlessness has no
defintion; it too is probably an aether. But its fun to pretend it is a
real thing, coz it raises kinda interesting lines of thought, including
the paradoxical thought that real things aint really real - man.
Peter
> 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.
>
>
>
|