A fake, fake painting is still a painting. — I like sushi

What is a "fake, fake painting" and how would that differ from a "fake, fake, fake painting?" Can such a concept continue ad infinitum? :chin:

This is a serious question.

I can grasp the concept. A printed dollar bill from your home printer is fake money. But then, in theory, it would be possible for you to somehow overthrow a given government and declare your then-"fake money" as real money. So, it kind of goes back to the whole "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" argument, but insofar as it meshes with socially-derived authority.

Of course, only a painting painted by say, Rembrandt, himself, will ever be a "real Rembrandt painting." What if he was never famous and some guy you never heard of painted something just as visually and aesthetically appealing? Would we pay millions for such? It's a curious question, a bit unrelated, though.

It's original, perhaps. If you're asking whether the intent was to copy something you know is not an original vs. if you thought it was the original, seems to be something your OP considers relevant, I think? If you're literally replicating a given object or scene to the exact detail, as much as possible, I mean, isn't that just what an Artist's Reprint or (proof) is I.E. a reproduction?

What is a "fake, fake painting" and how would that differ from a "fake, fake, fake painting?" Can such a concept continue ad infinitum? — Outlander

Yes it can

My point is that is seems like with some terms the usual double negative rule does not necessarily apply.

"Fake" is not a negation. The negation of "is a painting" would be "is not a painting," rather than "is a fake painting."

What does "fake fake" mean, anyway?

Fake means not genuine/authentic.

Not what I asked.

Hint: "fake" is not an inherent, fixed property; it is a relation between two terms. We may say that x is a fake in respect of its relation to y; but obviously, x must be genuine with respect to itself (unless you wish to mangle the law of identity).

To take an example: Joe Poppledecker is a third-rate artist, but he has an aptitude for imitating the style of Vermeer, and he makes a living by selling his paintings to gullible tourists. He never represents the picture to be a Vermeer; he professes ignorance as to its origin; he allows the tourist to deceive himself into thinking he has discovered something special. Is his picture fake or genuine? It obviously isn't a real Vermeer, but it is certainly a real Poppledecker, and he never represents it to be something it isn't.

Costume (theatre) jewelry is obviously "fake" in respect of real gold, diamonds, pearls etc; but it must, at least, be genuine costume jewelry. Thus "fake" cannot be applied to a term unconditionally; it must always be understood as a relation between terms.

As for "fake fakes": suppose Poppledecker's pictures become so famous that other forgers start to imitate his "fakes" (such things do happen, in the world of antiques). It is easy to see that in logical terms, nothing has actually changed. The fake Poppledeckers are not being represented as Vermeers, but (explicitly or implicitly) as fake Poppledeckers. Is a "fake fake" Vermeer necessarily a genuine Vermeer?

Bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a forum page about the logic and philosophy of mathematics, should we consider the original post as a fake question?

I already stated a problem I see in the OP. A fake fake could be construed as something Fake and as something Genuine. It depends on which 'fake' we prioritise perhaps?

1) A FAKE fake seems like it should be considered a fake.
2) A fake FAKE seems like it should be considered genuine.

1 is concerned primarily with the item being fake, whereas 2 is concerned with the negation of fakeness.

Bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a forum page about the logic and philosophy of mathematics, should we consider the original post as a fake question? — alan1000

Maybe it is just that simple :) It was more of a curious musing that I thought might create some interesting back and forth.

Costume jewllery are most certainly real fakes. So if in that case the jewllery is assumed to be fake but is actually genuine, then fake fake means genuine.

Sometimes things ain't not what you mightn't have thought them not to be, and sometimes they're just a pile of words, that are unclear and meaningless. So, why is a mouse when it spins? I await your dissertations with despair.

A fake painting is still a painting. A fake, fake painting is still a painting. The ony matter than seems unclear is whether or nto it is fake. — I like sushi

"fake" = -1 [False]
"painting" = 1 [True]

fake painting => fake(painting) = a fake painting

• "fake" is referring to the "painting"
• [-1 * 1 = -1] = False

fake fake painting => fake(fake(painting)) = a genuine painting

• the first "fake" is referring to the "fake painting"
• [-1 * (-1 * 1) = 1] = True

fake fake fake painting => fake(fake(fake(painting))) = a fake painting

• the first "fake" refers to the second "fake" which is referring to the "fake painting"
• [-1 * (-1 * (-1 * 1)) = -1] = False

Keep on adding more "fake" and it will alternate between "fake painting" and "genuine painting" forever.

A "fake fake painting" if you will can also be thought of as a "copy of a copy of the original". The more "fake" you add the further removed from the original the "fake painting" will be. The difference in this way of thinking about it is that once fake always fake with no periodic alterations between fake and genuine.

Exactly.

I am sure everyone has heard of the analogy taken at the atom level too where a painting is replicated down to the atomic level? If we then accidently mix them up do they both become the original to us?

And if so what is there to say against them both being Original if they are indistinguishable by every other trait other than their existing history (which is unobservable physically)?

I am sure everyone has heard of the analogy taken at the atom level too where a painting is replicated down to the atomic level? If we then accidently mix them up do they both become the original to us? — I like sushi

Well if i knew which one was the original before they got mixed up then i would know that one of them is the original. I will have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong and i would know that fact. With no way of knowing choosing one over the other would simply be a belief and not knowledge. Objectively the original is still there but hidden away from our ability to know.

It would not be reasonable in my estimation to state that both are the original, because even if structurally identical they have two different paths within spacetime. Although for practical purposes in most cases i suppose it shouldn't be a problem.

It would not be reasonable in my estimation to state that both are the original, because even if structurally identical they have two different paths within spacetime. Although for practical purposes in most cases i suppose it shouldn't be a problem. — punos

Agreed, to a point. I think I would say 'practical' with a bit more force. If the physicality of a painting is primarily what matters (and I would argue that it is), then both would be indistinguishable. The history of the painting is much harder to construe as 'physical' as a painting -- in terms of aesthetic quality -- is not determined by its historical journey.

This would dovetail into why I do not view most 'conceptual art' as Art.

Agreed, to a point. I think I would say 'practical' with a bit more force. If the physicality of a painting is primarily what matters (and I would argue that it is), then both would be indistinguishable. The history of the painting is much harder to construe as 'physical' as a painting -- in terms of aesthetic quality -- is not determined by its historical journey. — I like sushi

Some art is valuable not only because of its aesthetic appeal but also because of its historical significance. An old painting, such as one created by a famous deceased artist, holds greater value due to its history. This is why a replica of the Mona Lisa costs significantly less than the original. The value lies not in the physical painting itself, but in what one thinks and believes about the painting. It’s a subjective distinction, meaning that one could be deceived into thinking the copy is the original and still experience the same feelings as if it were, in fact, the original. Also, one can be convinced that the original is a fake and lose a large portion of its subjective value.

Is that Artistic Value though? i would say no. As an object of Art there is a further arguments to be had ...

If it was literally #D printed top teh atomic level there is no human touch, so it woudl not be Art. We find difficulties in these areas and this interests me a lot as it is here that logic fails to demarcate what somethign si or is not due to the subjectivity of experience.

If it was literally #D printed top teh atomic level there is no human touch, so it woudl not be Art. — I like sushi

So, you think that an atomically precise replica of a genuine work of art is not art? For you, the art lies in the physical artifact itself rather than in the concept behind it? But earlier, you suggested that there should be no difference between the two, as i quoted below.

And if so what is there to say against them both being Original if they are indistinguishable by every other trait other than their existing history (which is unobservable physically)? — I like sushi

If i created a work of art, such as a painting, and then gave you an atomically precise printed copy of it, would you consider it art or not? Or, if i wrote a book and gave you an atomically precise copy of it, would you regard that copy as a work of literature?

We find difficulties in these areas and this interests me a lot as it is here that logic fails to demarcate what somethign si or is not due to the subjectivity of experience. — I like sushi

Can you clarify what you mean by “demarcating what something is or is not due to the subjectivity of experience”?

I think it is possible for fake fake to be kind of a double negation in some cases.
For example, let's say we have fake gold, and you can tell it's not real by the fact that if you shine a light on it, it's a bit more orangey.
But then there becomes a fashion of knowingly and overtly wearing fake gold. People start making fake fake gold. And one of the ways of making fake fake gold is to take regular gold and add a thin veneer of orange gloss.

As implied by this example though; I am not saying fake fake = genuine. Only that "fake" is a broad, and relative, term such that something that is genuinely X is one of the things that could satisfy a use as "fake fake X".

Is a fake fake, genuine or fake? — I like sushi

In order to get a fake fake, you have to highlight a ontological difference between an object in itself, and the person who perceives that object.

To conceive of something as a fake fake (so maybe genuine in itself), you have to set out the object and call it "genuine" and then set out the person who perceives that object as a "fake". The person was faked (by some other person or some other third-party context presumably) into thinking they were perceiving a fake. So the designation of "fake" comes from the perceiving person, not from the thing, because the thing in itself is a fake fake, or possibly genuine.

If you don't want get into analyzing things in themselves (or at least some agreed, stipulated objective person-independent context), I don't see how you can get into analyzing fake fakes.

If i created a work of art, such as a painting, and then gave you an atomically precise printed copy of it, would you consider it art or not? Or, if i wrote a book and gave you an atomically precise copy of it, would you regard that copy as a work of literature? — punos

I guess this is part of a discussion in another thread. There is the experience of making Art and the experiencing if Art. With a replica I am still experiencing the Original Work even if I look to the finest level.

The regard for experiencing the original is identical on an aesthetic level. We can somewhat understand the distinction better when considering music. A song can be listened too in different ways, but the recording is still authentic to the original sound assuming one has an excellent sound system. A live recording misses out the atmosphere of the live experience but the sound is genuine.

When it comes to AI writing novels I find a problem with what I am saying regarding how I frame the term Art, but that is another matter. Artifical Art I guess? Which makes it Artistically appreciated but not Artistically Created.

Can you clarify what you mean by “demarcating what something is or is not due to the subjectivity of experience”? — punos

As in the kind of idea people have that how something is genuine matters to them more even when the sensory experience is identical. The Hard Problem of consciousness.

My point was that this can mean different things as how the meaning is interpreted is not set in stone.

A fake fake could be something that is original yet coincidently looks identical to something else. Here there is a reasonable case for saying that both are Genuine, Original and Identical, but neither are copies as it only appears that one is a copy of the other.

So your discussion is about "what is the thing in itself that is called a fake" What makes a fake a fake?

So you have a Cactus in a pot, and separately, you have a Plastic cactus in a plastic pot.

In one sense, the cactus is a genuine organic plant, and the plastic cactus is a genuine decoration that requires no care. Both are genuine things in themselves (as all things are in some sense genuine as things qua things.)

In another sense, the cactus is genuine and the plastic cactus is fake.

Fake arises because of intention, and inside the perceiver. Someone perceives one of the cacti - they think "it is a living organism," but later learn it was plastic decoration. So they would call the cactus a "fake" AND would say they were deceived or faked out.
Someone else perceives one of the cacti and think "that is a plastic decoration, a fake cactus" and later learn they were correct. In this latter case, they were not deceived or faked out, and they could say they were looking at a genuine decoration made to look like an actual cactus.

So now, what makes a fake, a fake? I think it must come from the perceiver, not the thing in itself. Only a perceiver could say the plastic decoration was the same thing as the organic plant, or that it was related to the organic plant at all intended to be a fake version of it. These are born in perception.

So if you put this conversation in the world of "art" and talk about a replica that is identical to the original, you are talking about "what is art" and "what is fake art". What is "art" is way harder to say than what is a "living cactus". So you may have a bottomless pit to discuss to get an example of "genuine art" before you enter the bottomless pit of what will be an example of "fake art".

I think the fake, fake fake, genuine subject is interesting, but it needs some constraints to keep it focused on that specific relationship.

You're on the right track. A fake Mona Lisa is a reproduction than is tryimg to pass as the original (as opposed to a copy, which might just be an exercise taken by the painter as practice). Whereas a fake, fake Mona Lisa isn't the original, rather it can be an original piece of art that is, say a parody of the numerous attempts at faking the original.

So now, what makes a fake, a fake? I think it must come from the perceiver, not the thing in itself. Only a perceiver could say the plastic decoration was the same thing as the organic plant, or that it was related to the organic plant at all intended to be a fake version of it. These are born in perception. — Fire Ologist

There is the direct logical view of viewing this as a double negative too, or assuming the a fake fake, a fake, or a fake fake fake fake, are always Fakes, of some sort or they would not be called fakes at all.

A white and black, black and white guitar are both white and black. A genuine fake is a perfectly acceptable term, but a fake genuine is not.

There is also something to be said about different types of antonym and how people disagree about categorisation -- I guess this is something of an obsession of mine!

But it also *could be* the original. Because all "fake" means is "trying to pass off as".
So yes hypothetically someone could be trying to pass off the real mona Lisa as being a fake mona Lisa painting.

Or, as I just stated, a genuinely original piece that just so happens to look identical to the other piece (maybe two artists even name the painting in the same way too).

a genuinely original piece — I like sushi

You said it yourself. These are both genuine.

What are you talking about?

Or, as I just stated, a genuinely original piece that just so happens to look identical to the other piece (maybe two artists even name the painting in the same way too). — I like sushi

You are talking about two pieces of art that are identical but each not made to mimic or fake the other.
That would be a crazy coincidence of two “genuine” pieces of art.

The example shows a logical case. Much like with the Trolley Problem the likelihood of the situation arising is not that important. It is the unlying reasoning we are concerned with.

I good give another example of someone inventing the Car and then someone else also inventing the Car completely unrelated to each other. If we are then to ask Who invented the Car? it is perfectly fine to say two people rather than one. The genuine inventor is both people, yet it is highly likley someone will accuse another of fraud and call them a Fake.

This is a different use of the term Fake though, but it is just an example of how the assumption of one genuine creator of an object/idea is not necessarily true. If taken to a more realistic level it is likley that someone is accused in Art of 'copying' someone else's style and therefore the style they use can be considered Fake as it is not their genuine style -- this is especially the case if the person replicating someone else's style does so with the intent of pretending this style is their own.

There is no true antonym of 'fake' so there is no necessary negation of it. Double negatives are only about Not Not Fake, rather than Fake Fake where the context can shift the meaning.

Not Fake is not a double negative, whereas Not Not Fake is, but I have seen people making this mistake simply because they construe a term that seems negative (such as fake) as a true Not.