Monday, April 11, 2011

Trash Replication

1. Content or theme in Trash Replication project? 1) what makes the original piece of trash unique if it can be replicated exactly? Does it have more or less value? Does its identity change? Since it is not an exact replication, only a visual representation – does the loss of utility give it less or more value? 2) Since the replication is art and the original object is trash, is it now more appealing/ precious?

I feel that while the replication may be impressive and more precious, as a visual piece or a functional object it does not hold up. The replication is no more appealing to me than the original trash other than the amount of time and skill that went into it.

Is this applicable to other replications or multiples? It seems that when replicating things of little value, the replication becomes more valued, but a replication of something that is thought to be impressive is less valuable. This works both ways: the replication can either add value to or devalue the original.

2. The pieces have more power as a group than individually. Each one does not have enough context on its own to be more powerful than the idea on its own.

If I could have replicated anything I think it would be interesting content-wise to replicate something beautiful in nature such as a plant or tree because it has a lot of value in itself because of its beauty but I don’t think that a replication could take away or add to that beauty because it is so common place and abundant.

3. I think that the required representation lends itself nicely to the context I have discussed. It is not about the value of the trash or the replication but how they play off of each other and devalue or value its counterpart. The comparative display and the way it is mounted as a piece of art rather than a piece of trash helps convey that this is a comparison we want the viewer make: art or trash? Value or no value?

Nora Kostow

1 comment: