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? — Outlander
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
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
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
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. — I like sushi
If it was literally #D printed top teh atomic level there is no human touch, so it woudl not be Art. — I like sushi
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
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
Is a fake fake, genuine or fake? — 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? — punos
Can you clarify what you mean by “demarcating what something is or is not due to the subjectivity of experience”? — punos
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
a genuinely original piece — I like sushi
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.