> At that point, whatever you output, is exactly the same as the original and has exactly the same dignity.
Except that it's not made by a specific person who lived 100's of years ago. That is impossible to restore, no matter what.
I get the idea of art being human movement, but I'm wondering if what's valued in the west is the act of movement by specific individual rather than the output artefact?
In a rebuilt temple there is an artistic value, but the main interest is not there. Is in the occupation of the place. "We were able to fight against the countless attempts of other people willing to displace us and use the soil in their own interests. This proves that we are a strong and successful community".
Behind the art lies a political game and a fight for power. Everything else is replaceable.
In fact improving the place is a basic strategy to keep the appeal to the public what pays for this and rebuild ASAP is essential to keep the place in the same hands and the money flowing.
Paintings like the Mona Lisa are powerful in a more subtle way. Can't be linked directly with political parties or kingdoms; Is just an anonymous woman. The main theme here is celebrating femininity.
So is much more powerful than "just another Buda statue bigger than those from Shelbyville". Unlike a local religion Mona Lisa can connect easily with the entire humanity.
Old paintings can be symbols of power also, but people normally don't give the same value to "this wall of the room has been always occupied by identical copies of a painting of a woman in the last 1000 years". A photo does not have the same value as a painting.
It is part of the perceived importance. My wife's an (western :) ) artist and I have spend uncountable hours discussing exactly this subject with her and her artists friends.
Even if you could not see / proof the one picture being the real one, their believe is rock solid that the original has higher (emotional) value.
The idea that the original hand, in the original moment, with the original intentions made one object and the not the other, is of paramount importance.
My art of preference is mostly music (and secondly film), and I'm of the same persuasion as those you describe when it comes to an original song. But I always attributed that to my percieved ability to hear the soulful intent of the original artist in the performence, whether by voice or by instrument. I may be fooling myself there, but I at least find it more plausible there than in, say, a painting.
I absolutely understand their viewpoint, even if I may not believe it myself.
A history buff going to a museum and seeing the sword carried by a famous general in a famous battle that they have read all about will means something very different than seeing an identical sword from the same time period that was just found in an old storage facility.
The historical artifact aspect of art is quite similar and to many people equally important.
Except that it's not made by a specific person who lived 100's of years ago. That is impossible to restore, no matter what.
I get the idea of art being human movement, but I'm wondering if what's valued in the west is the act of movement by specific individual rather than the output artefact?