How much intrinsic value does an original piece of art have over a copy?

[loinburger]

Intrinsic meaning e.g. how much more would you pay for the original than for the copy even if it were impossible for you to get any profit by the sale of either (due to government price controls or the impossibility of authenticating the original or whatever). Use whichever benchmark piece of art you like, or the Mona Lisa if you'd prefer to use a generic piece of art. Anything larger than, say, the David is off limits, due to the difficulty in copying e.g. the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty.

No poll. My vote is cast for "none."

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Intrinsic value? None, really. The same amount of intrinsic value most non-functional constructions have since it's all granted by the cultural around it. (See also Walter Benjamin, but ignore the political rants.)

[DanS]

Most reproductions necessarily lose some fidelity. However, the setting may actually mean that the original has less intrinsic value than the copy. F.e., I would argue that the broadcast of some sporting events has a higher intrinsic value than attendance. Or the experience of a movie in a home theater may be much better than the film version at the theater. Well, that film version at the theater is a copy too, but I'm sure you catch my drift. Or maybe the piece of art is in a remote location and the copy can bring more to a larger number of people through copying.

[The Mad Monk]

Considerably more. In the case of the Mona Lisa, Millions as opposed to hundreds for a good copy. Mainly because of the history involved. The painter himself touched it. Kings have owned it. Infamous thieves have stolen it.

You can't say that about a copy.

[DanS]

Here's the Mona Lisa. Are you in Paris right now, waiting in a massive line to get into the Louvre? The intrinsic value of the original painting is zero to you now. However, the value of the copy is non-zero to you.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Considerably more. In the case of the Mona Lisa, Millions as opposed to hundreds for a good copy. Mainly because of the history involved. The painter himself touched it. Kings have owned it. Infamous thieves have stolen it.

You can't say that about a copy.

That's not intrinsic. That's Benjamin's "aura".

[The Mad Monk]

I'm using intrinsic as it was defined by Loin. Get with the program.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Can you extract DNA and clone the artist from a copy? I think not.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm using intrinsic as it was defined by Loin. Get with the program.

Yeah, that wasn't intrinsic either.

[loinburger]

Oh **** off.

[rah]

I have a wood carving from the Vatican that is an incredibly detailed depiction of King Solomon ruling on splitting the child.
I've seen copies of it done in plaster, and they no where near convey the beauty of the original.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oh **** off.

What? You're asking how much people would pay for aura. Aura is culturally assigned, there's nothing intrinsic about it. It's not just me being pedantic, it's a kind of important point in the last century of art.

[loinburger]

I gave a more concrete definition of the concept I was after in my first post specifically to avoid this kind of bull**** art theory wankery.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

This...



....is Marcel Duchamp's spooge.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I gave a more concrete definition of the concept I was after in my first post specifically to avoid this kind of bull**** art theory wankery.

Given the question you asked, it's kinda hard to avoid...