« Kirschenbaum (Preface, Introduction, Ch 1, Ch 2) Informal Reflection... | Main | Kirschenbaum (Chapter 3) Informal Reflection... »

Kirschenbaum (Chapter 3) Agenda Item...

Agenda Item: “A copy of the Mona Lisa is just that - a copy of an acknowledged original - while a copy of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein is a perfectly valid way of experiencing the work,” (Mechanisms 134)

I find it incredible how we as a culture and society see the reprinting of a classic novel as acceptable, but the reproduction of a classic painting as invalid and insulting to the creator. I think this says a little something about the implication that texts (specifically books) are meant to be reproduced where as art is valued only in its original form. The reproduction of books is 100% acceptable and not at all seen as invalid. The whole concept of allographic identification and the sameness of spelling is what hold together this entire idea. Digitally the reproduction of text and graphics follows the same criteria.

Assignment Link

Comments (5)

Jeremy Barrick :

To copy something is not original. I can understand why professors do not want students to paraphrase things, that only leads to copying. The text is easy to reproduce but fine art is difficult. If you are the author or artisan of a work, you would not be pleased by others copying your work.

ChrisU:

It's just as easy to copy graphics as it is to copy text. All you need is a scanner and a printer (which are sometimes packaged together in the same machine nowadays).

While original texts may not be quite as valuable as original works of art, there is still some value placed on first editions and such.

Kayla Sawyer:

Maybe reproducing art is more difficult than text? Perhaps they can't get the colors and form exactly the same.

Daniella Choynowski:

I've hearhd it said that part of experiencing the art is seeing and feeling the texture. i reprint is not the same. Words are words; they have no texture and color. They speak for themselves. Words are one dimensional, whereas art can exist in 2 and 3 dimensions.

I would have to agree that reproducing art work much more difficult then reprinting a text. Art is a one time deal in my opinion. I just wonder what that says about the value we place on original art compared to original text. Chris hinted at the first edition values, but I can't think of any other “super valuable” text.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if we ceased being literate completely and began devolving in regard to literacy; meaning people just stopped writing new books for whatever reason and we had to rely on every book that had previously been printed.

Dani I like what you said about the words being one dimensional.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 16, 2008 7:18 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Kirschenbaum (Preface, Introduction, Ch 1, Ch 2) Informal Reflection....

The next post in this blog is Kirschenbaum (Chapter 3) Informal Reflection....

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.