• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Raffi's poverty

...
Reproductions are good but if people appreciate art then close isn't good enough. At least from my understanding. Replicators may be good enough but an appreciation for originality will not quite be satisfied by good enough.

Unless you're roaming art galleries with a microscope, a good copy is just as good as the original as far as technique and style go.
 
Unless you're roaming art galleries with a microscope, a good copy is just as good as the original as far as technique and style go.
Except that misses the point completely, and invalidates the nature of art. And, regardless of personal views on the matter, this is explicitly demonstrated with in the world of Star Trek itself. "The Most Toys" has a collector finding all manner of unique things. "In the Cards" has Jake trying to get a baseball card for his dad, and have enough money to actually purchase it, rather than just replicate it. Picard's archelogy professor gives him a rare find that Picard notes is very valuable. This is the nature of the world. Just because others do not see that value does not mean that people will not value it and it is demonstrated time and again.
 
Except that misses the point completely, and invalidates the nature of art. And, regardless of personal views on the matter, this is explicitly demonstrated with in the world of Star Trek itself. "The Most Toys" has a collector finding all manner of unique things.
"unique things" does not define art. If my five-year-old grandchild makes a clay ashtray, it'll definitely be unique and to me, it will be very valuable but it'll hardly qualify as a piece of art for people unrelated to him.

"In the Cards" has Jake trying to get a baseball card for his dad, and have enough money to actually purchase it, rather than just replicate it.
A baseball card! That's art for you?

Picard's archelogy professor gives him a rare find that Picard notes is very valuable....

Ironically enough we see him throw it aside in Generations as if it was a piece of junk.
 
"unique things" does not define art. If my five-year-old grandchild makes a clay ashtray, it'll definitely be unique and to me, it will be very valuable but it'll hardly qualify as a piece of art for people unrelated to him.
Enlighten me, please. Define art and why replicated versions are just as good in your eyes?

A baseball card! That's art for you?
Talking about value of things in the Star Trek universe, not just art.
Ironically enough we see him throw it aside in Generations as if it was a piece of junk.
Yet another reason that movie is of lesser quality.


ETA: I could subtitle this "Value in the Age of Replication."
 
Unless you're roaming art galleries with a microscope, a good copy is just as good as the original as far as technique and style go.
Nope. It's the personal touch that matters. Nothing beats the original.
I keep a high-quality, museum-store print of Hopper's Nighthawks in my bedroom. I have no desire to own the original (which I can and do usually visit when I'm vacationing in Chicago; I just checked, and it's currently on exhibit in Gallery 262). And I can't really think of my five favorite works of art off the top of my head, but Hopper's Nighthawks is certainly one of them. In fact, Hopper is one of the very few artists whose work I can instantly recognize from two galleries away, even if it's an opus I'd never seen nor heard of before. And yes, that scenario actually has happened: I actually have been drawn to a completely unfamiliar painting from two galleries away, thinking "That looks like a Hopper," and sure enough, it was.
 
And to be perfectly fair the foley artists put a breaking porcelain/pottery sound in there as if he just threw and broke an ancient alien artifact that wasn't yet destroyed. It was just a very poor choice of foley.

And we see in PIC from Picard's vault at the Starfleet Archive that the artifact survived and is now kept on protected display. So he wasn't just dismissing the treasured artifact and throwing it for the sake of throwing it, it survived and was eventually sent to Earth.
 
Yes, because he had just lost his brother, nephew and command. Some things are more important than art, even to art lovers.
Wasn't he looking for his Shakespeare book in that scene?

Or was it the ship's plaque...

And to be perfectly fair the foley artists put a breaking porcelain/pottery sound in there as if he just threw and broke an ancient alien artifact that wasn't yet destroyed. It was just a very poor choice of foley.

And we see in PIC from Picard's vault at the Starfleet Archive that the artifact survived and is now kept on protected display. So he wasn't just dismissing the treasured artifact and throwing it for the sake of throwing it, it survived and was eventually sent to Earth.
Ah I forgot it was there.
 
Yes, baseball cards can be considered art. Art by definition has no set parameters for what it is and isn't. Some baseball cards are airbrushed or partially-painted beauties of 20th century graphic design and printing.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top