It's an interesting question, the one about how "genuine" a copy is.
To me, it seems similar to the debate about copyright and intellectual property that's going on right now. For copyright, of course, the issue is ownership of information, and the boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate use and copying of such information. Some people are pushing for some form of ultimate control, even though that's totally unattainable, while others are finding mechanisms, such as creative commons licenses, to cede control of some rights and keep others.
For objects, it's evident that there are a couple of ways to look at it. In "our" culture, ownership and control of an original is important, but there's no reason to assume that our attitude is the only one, or (dare I say it?) even the best one.
If the futurists are right, we're entering an era where the copying of real objects will become increasingly cheaper and more accurate, and it's not too far-fetched to start thinking about what will happen when a factory in China can cheaply produce something that's indistinguishable from a real antique without radiocarbon dating. Whose standards will be primary in this copying? Will originality matter, or not? I don't have any answers, but it's something worth thinking about.
F
|