John: Hey sudhi! Howz it going?
Me: Hey John. I am doing good. Life’s been a lil hectic off late.. but anyhow, how come you are here in my dream?
John: Well you know, I was wondering about this one questions I came up with in my Philosophy class and since I couldn’t get a hold of you during regular school hours, I felt I might infiltrate your dreams!!!!
Me: AAH!!!! … ok. go on.
John: Ok. Suppose, that you like an artist’s work, let’s say for the sake of simplicity, Pablo Picasso, and you decided to go to an art gallery and buy a painting you loved at first sight, which is signed by Picasso. You end up paying almost over a million dollars and hang it up in the middle of your living room so that you can show it to all your friends and make them feel jealous. But, one day a friend of yours comes and says that the painting is a forgery since he owns an exact replica of the same painting and he saw Picasso sign it. Also, he knows for a fact that Picasso didn’t make two of the same kind. How do you feel when you hear this statement?
Me: Well John, I would feel cheated. Then I would go back to the art gallery and take up the matter with them. If required, I would even play the ‘legal card’.
John: Interesting. Now, Why might you do that? I mean, sure you over paid for the painting, but then you never got to know that it was a fake until your friend told you.
Me: Well then it is true, but then I paid for Picasso’s painting.. not some street urchin who could just run the brush up and down on a canvas!
John: Well sudhi, I said in the beginning that you bought the painting because you liked the way it looked. So are you telling me that you bought the painting just because of the Artist and not because of the meaning it contained in itself? So, in other words, are you paying for the fame the artist has?
Me: Well no. You are right, I bought the painting because I liked it. But, think about this. When Picasso painted the painting, he had a certain motivation to do so. But when this other guy forged it, all he cared was to make it look exactly like the original one and make the millions that he would have never dreamt off!
John: Aah! so now you are telling me that the artist’s meaning matters.
Me: Of course it does!
John: Ok sudhi. Here take a look, now what do you see in this ? {Showing him an abstract painting}
Me: Well this is a very abstract painting. It seems that the human figures are actually women, and since the faces are hazed out, it seems that it is making a social commentary in the 20th century. It is showing us what the role of women was in the society.
John: You know sudhi, I think you will understand my point now. This painting was painted by a 10 year old girl. She had just received these amazing water colors and she wanted to paint something and see how it looked. Now, you see, she never intended it to have any of the meanings you extracted from this piece of ‘art’; but does it mean that whatever you said was wrong? Of course not!. It is said that meaning is created when the piece of art work is viewed. So, what I am trying to say is that it usually doesn’t matter what the artist intends his artwork to portray. At the end it’s all up to the person who is receiving the art. It’s all about what the person sees in it. Now I ask you again, why would you get annoyed at buying a forgery which looks exactly like the original one in all dimensions?
Me: John, I guess it’s not about the meaning now. I guess it’s about the currency and rarity of the object. Now, I know for a fact that most painters paint a piece of art only once! Now, when I bought this painting, I looked at different variables before saying that ‘I LOVE IT!’
I looked at the meaning it contained in itself, and then I thought, this is the original masterpiece, so no one could ever have it if I bought it. So I decided to buy it under the condition that I would be the sole owner of the painting!
John: Let me twist the question a little. Had the name “Pablo Picasso” not been on the painting. In fact let it not have any signature at the bottom of the picture, would you still be willing to buy it for the same price? Since you said that any painter would never paint two pieces more than once, the above parameters you set still hold good, so you should have no hesitation in buying it. Right?
Me: NO WAY!
John: Why not? you still like the picture, but just that it doesn’t have Pablo Picasso’s name. Does it mean that you are paying for the name rather than the painting itself?
Me: I guess so.
John: Well sudhi you know, don’t feel defeated! we all do it. We do it every single day. Suppose you go to circuit city and want to buy a home theater system. Which one would you rather buy? The one with a good brand name and quality or the one with a ‘not so known’ brand name with the same quality? It is a basic human instinct, to go with the name. Not so often do we see people actually comparing specs of branded objects vs specs of unbranded objects; it seems that such items are incomparable! Wise men always say “don’t go by the name”, we just never tend to listen!
John: Sudhi! Thanks for your time. I guess it’s time for you to go back to sleep! Nice talking to you again!
Me: No problem John. Anytime!
Thanks to Ilya F. and Andreas M. For having contributed their thoughts on this issue.
For starters, congratulations on your new blog!!! To be perfectly honest, I have always wanted to start one up myself. Like many of my other desires, I simply never got around to doing so. It seems that only once you have mastered time management, can we truly peruse the seemingly pointless arts (seemingly being the key word). I’m happy that you have reached the point where you have time for things like this. Sadly, I have yet to commit to anything of the sort.
As for your first topic, I can’t say I disagree with you; since after all we did have this discussion before. I like how you presented the many possible arguments and refuted them all, until reaching a final conclusion. Might I recommend reading The Republic by Plato? Actually, I think I already have. Anyways, my only contribution to this topic is this:
When discussing the “name” which we are paying for, we need to distinguish between the name of the painter and a brand name. They are not the same thing. Yes, they both represent a certain quality of craftsmanship, but the name Picasso has an added feature. It also represents rarity. It is arguable that brand names are also rare, but never to the point of costing millions per item. To make this broader, mass-production in general, no matter what quality, will never amount to the cost of uniquely hand crafted goods. Well that’s all I have to add.
Once again, congratulation on your blog!
You present your argument in a way that is biased it seems like. You add new variables after manipulating the individual by using key words. Thus you have trapped sudhi into a position where he is bound to be wrong. An experiment to be empirical in study has to have one control and one variable. Alas, life comes with myriads of variables. Similar to physics where if you were to pixelate the world each pixel would be a point of interaction which requires a formula to be applied to it. Now getting back to the philosophy, you have a situation that requires that you present a clear argument to the individual involved, but that is practically impossible. For structurally, you made it a “tree diagram” style argument, where one possibility then leads to a new set of options. I would expect if repeated, with different order of the same options, you will have, I strongly believe, infinite amounts of outcomes. So this is the randomness of life…
Meaning is thus derived by the end-user of said art, for a work of art has only the meaning denoted to it by the word of men, not the creator. Its rarity is meaningless. Sudhi went after an object for a combination of reasons, the summation of this would be, from his professional knowledge of art, he bought the painting, but his knowledge of art is based on the opinion of others! How could he possibly have a critical opinion about the work. A baby being told first to eat the candy, then the candy taken away.
How to present this, I have only a slim idea, educate sudhi.
Affluenza
(pareshkumar chandrakant brahmbhat is not liable for any offense implied by above statements. Intellectual claim is made of above statements. By reading this, the reader nullifies any legal actions they may partake against pareshkumar chandrakant brahmbhatt.)
@ Ilya
I agree with you. I am comparing two different
commodities. I guess I need to find a better analogy.
Spring break approaches at a steady rate! “Republic By Plato” it is!!!! lol
paresh.
Love your disclaimer.
But anyway.. my take on the comments you have raised… think about the setting of this whole dialogue (in fact a monologue)… it is all a dream. Therefore, whether it be John or “Me”, it still is me dreaming this whole thing. So I am allowed to make a “tree diagram” if you wish, for myself. This is more like a question answer to myself from two people’s perspectives. But then again my intention has no affect on what you think! As one might perceive this article as a piece of art and might come up with his/her own meaning!
So yea.. you are right in your own way but according to me, I have justified it enough
thanks for the comment.