20444
|
If paintings could be perfectly duplicated, it would be a multiple art form [Currie, by Bacharach]
|
|
Full Idea:
Currie claims that, in principle, all art forms are multiple. A superxerox machine, duplicating a painting molecule by molecule, would show that paintings are singular only contingently.
|
|
From:
report of Gregory Currie (An Ontology of Art [1988]) by Sondra Bacharach - Arthur C. Danto 3
|
|
A reaction:
This strikes me as correct. An original painting would then have the same status as the manuscript of a poem, giving it an authority, and being moving by its personal contact with the artist. But worth far less than current original paintings.
|
6866
|
It is disturbing if we become unreal when we die, but if time is unreal, then we remain real after death [Le Poidevin]
|
|
Full Idea:
For the A-theorists called 'presentists' the past is as unreal as the future, and reality leaves us behind once we die, which is disturbing; but B-theorists, who see time as unreal, say we are just as real after our deaths as we were beforehand.
|
|
From:
Robin Le Poidevin (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.174)
|
|
A reaction:
See Idea 6865 for A and B theories. I wonder if this problem is only superficially 'disturbing'. Becoming unreal may sound more drastic than becoming dead, but they both sound pretty terminal to me.
|
6865
|
A-theory says past, present, future and flow exist; B-theory says this just reports our perspective [Le Poidevin]
|
|
Full Idea:
The A-theory regards our intuitive distinction of time into past, present and future as objective, and takes seriously the idea that time flows; the B-theory says this just reflects our perspective, like the spatial distinction between here and there.
|
|
From:
Robin Le Poidevin (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.174)
|
|
A reaction:
The distinction comes from McTaggart. Physics seems to be built on an objective view of time, and yet Einstein makes time relative. What possible evidence could decide between the two theories?
|