This article highlights the contrast between physical artwork and virtual reproduction by looking at the deflating dog gif created by Micheal Green that was inspired by Jeff Koons's famous balloon dogs. One interesting part of the article is that it references the description that was given to the eBay listing. The description explains that the gif is part of a series, that “explores the desire of class ‘objects’ through the replication and representation of the original object.” This caused me to question; can a recreated work ever really be as valuable as the original? Or in this case, could Green’s replica ever be as valuable as Jeff Koons’s original balloon dog?
Instinctively, I believe the answer is no, a replica can never have as much value as the original work, and I have mixed feelings about what Micheal Green set out to do. However, I do think this whole situation works to answer the stated objective of the series; to “explore the desire of class ‘objects’ through the replication and representation of the original object,” even if the discovered answer is that desire diminishes through replication and representation.
On a different note, I think this article could bring up some interesting questions about the difference in value seen between digital art and physical, tangible art. I don’t think this specific situation is the best example since it also involves the replication of original work, but it made me think about how digital art is at times seen as inherently less valuable just because it is intangible. I personally disagree with this, especially in the 21st century and widespread use of technology, digital art can be just as valuable, if not more at times.
I read in another article by GQ, that the gif never ended up selling. On eBay, listings eventually expire if they don’t receive any biddings. This was the case for Micheal Green’s “Balloon Dog Deflated.”
Comentários