Friday 17 August 2018

The Philosophical Difference Between Original Art and a Fake

Why do people prefer an original work of art to an exact-copy of it when they cannot tell the difference between the two? It cannot be due to aesthetic reasons because the two look similar. It is possible that if the copy which looks like the original is a counterfeit, we will be averse to it for purely moral reasons, just as we are averse to any act of fraud. But even if the copies do not entail any act of counterfeiting, they tend to evoke some kind of negative response from people. For instance, there are copies of Leonardo da Vinci’s Monalisa and other famous masterpieces that are openly labelled as exact-copies. If the original and the exact-copy are displayed side-by-side in a museum, people will queue up in front of the original.

2 comments:

Irfan Khawaja said...

I've summarized the discussion we had on Facebook here on my blog:

https://irfankhawajaphilosopher.com/2018/08/21/originals-fakes-and-copies-reductionism-and-anti-reductionism-about-painting/

When I responded to you on Facebook, I hadn't read the blog version of your post, and missed the material on Nelson Goodman. It turns out that the position I was taking is similar to Goodman's.

Incidentally, it occurs to me that a blog is a much better place to discuss philosophy than Facebook.

Anoop Verma said...

Thanks. It sums up the entire discussion on FB. I am also wondering about what constitutes good art and what constitutes frivolous art. Why is the drawing of Mickey Mouse not as important in the world of art as the painting of Rembrandt? After all, Mickey Mouse is also very popular. As a brand, Mickey Mouse may be valued much more than any Rembrandt -- so why is Rembrandt hailed as a great art and not the mouse?