> So, if I "rephotographed" a well known photograph, at
>the scene and reproduced the entire photograph with another process as to
>make the entire thing identical and indistinguishable from the original,
>would it be the same thing as the original?
I would tend to argue that it is not possible to ever fully duplicate an art
form -
even using the same process. To start a whole other line of argument - is
it art if it can be identically reproduced, or does it simply become
craft?...hmmm.
Making myself think on this one....
>Another way to ask this question is: When looking at an object, is your
>experience of the object determined by its existence or by the process
>by which that object came into being?
I think this is a key feature/discussion topic as well. Is art simply the
final
object, or is art more interactive and growing constantly? Does an artist
have a responsibility to add his/her two cents concerning the object?
Is the artist being selfish by not telling others how the object came into
existence?
Just some quick thoughts - thanks for listening. No I don't agree with
myself
on some of the issues, but I like to give myself a mental challenge as
well...
Kevin