April23 said:As I slowly take off your shirt....
....and put it back on when you see I have bewbies.
April23 said:As I slowly take off your shirt....
You do realize its common practice in some museums to not display the orginals in their collection. They commission high grade fakes for display and don't tell anyone. Back in the begining of August, theives stole 3 paintings of Munch from Hotel Continental in Oslo. It was later revealed that the real painting were sitting in the hotel vault and that fakes were on display. Only a very few people knew that before the robbery.Coqui said:physically indecernable eh?
I figured you could actually see the brush strokes in the original and not in the print.
Pandora said:His point is a philosophical one. If there is no discernable physical difference between the replica and the original, is there really any difference. If every brush stroke looked EXACTLY the same between the two, would they be the same (ie have the same value)?
Pandora said:His point is a philosophical one. If there is no discernable physical difference between the replica and the original, is there really any difference. If every brush stroke looked EXACTLY the same between the two, would they be the same (ie have the same value)?
theacoustician said:You do realize its common practice in some museums to not display the orginals in their collection. They commission high grade fakes for display and don't tell anyone. Back in the begining of August, theives stole 3 paintings of Munch from Hotel Continental in Oslo. It was later revealed that the real painting were sitting in the hotel vault and that fakes were on display. Only a very few people knew that before the robbery.
So did the fact they were fake change the experience to the people who unwittingly admired them as originals? Apparently not since no one, not even art theives could tell the difference.
Coqui said:Yes I do realize that. But in terms of our usage, how many people are willing to spend that much money on a known fake?
Somewhat offtopic: What no one still probably knows is that the theoretical 'real' paintings are also probably fakes. They run RAMPANT in the art world, but no one wants to admit that either, as then the value of their priceless painting drops to ZEROtheacoustician said:You do realize its common practice in some museums to not display the orginals in their collection. They commission high grade fakes for display and don't tell anyone. Back in the begining of August, theives stole 3 paintings of Munch from Hotel Continental in Oslo. It was later revealed that the real painting were sitting in the hotel vault and that fakes were on display. Only a very few people knew that before the robbery.
So did the fact they were fake change the experience to the people who unwittingly admired them as originals? Apparently not since no one, not even art theives could tell the difference.
Absolutely, but I value art for the experience, not because its "one of kind".fly said:Somewhat offtopic: What no one still probably knows is that the theoretical 'real' paintings are also probably fakes. They run RAMPANT in the art world, but no one wants to admit that either, as then the value of their priceless painting drops to ZERO
Bubbles said:However, this watermelon tootsie-pop I found is quite tasty. Mmmmmm!
I LOVE gala apples. So yummy.Pandora said:However this Gala apple I brought is quite tastey. Mmmmm!
Coqui said:The extra hairs added a nice flavor huh?
Want the one from my ass too?Bubbles said:I found it wrapped in a bowl of candy on someone's desk.....not in a hairy spot.
Its covered in hair left there from dozens of men.Bubbles said:Your ass isn't hairy either.
theacoustician said:Its covered in hair left there from dozens of men.