Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
The items are not, however, identical if they were not made by the same person.
Yes they are. If I take a collection of objects (take for example, lego art which I saw reported on 3 News the other night), and join them together, they're exactly the same as the same collection of objects joined together in the same way by someone else. No physical difference at all, nobody in the world could tell them apart, without some sort of dna testing or fingerprints on the objects.
If that someone else is some famous artist, their identical art work will sell for more than mine.
Hence the object is clearly not the only thing on sale, the history, context, metadata, name attached to it is part of the value or price.
If the object was the only thing on sale (as you said), the fact that they were identical would mean that they should fetch the same price.
What if I switched the labels, selling the authentic one as yours and your one as "made by xxx". As far as objectively observable, if the objects are physically identical and cannot be told apart, the buyer would pay as much for the copy because of the metadata that's now been attached to it, and would be satisfied by the purchase.
They would be satisfied by the purchase until they found out that you'd switched the labels, at which point they'd have you charged with fraud or some similar crime.
Dishonesty about the provenance of an object doesn't mean that the provenance doesn't have value. Indeed, it indicates that changing the intangibles, but leaving the object exactly the same, changes the value, which was precisely my argument. If you can swap labels beside an artwork and change the value to a purchaser, you're not just selling the object, because the object hasn't changed.
The two comparable tipping points are fire, and writing.
Agriculture. Massively important. Followed up by domestication of animals.
The internet has a long way before it's as significant as those four.
phew man, that was a mammoth effort.
Interesting post Mark. Sometimes you make sense, and sometimes the social darwinist comes out.
-
amend the legislation so that appointments to honours at the level of knighthoods and above should be made by legislation in the House with the support of a minimum of two-thirds of its members.
Don't knighthoods all come from the crown via the GG, upon advice of the government?
How could parliament make someone a knight anyway? Takes a monarch to make a knight by definition surely?
-
apologies. a long day of seeing 100 of my fellow employees sacked.
crappy :(
-
Why anyone would like to join a club that includes Michael Fay and Roger Douglas is beyond me.
I'd be in favour of it, as long as some of the other traditions are retained.
I'll be pushing for the newly knighted Sir Tana Umaga or Sir Ritchie McCaw to sort out either of the above via sword, lance, or pistols at 10 paces. "On my honour sir, you screwed my country! Defend yourself!"
-
Mark, you said:
You need to be clear as to what's on sale, and it's only the object.
Which is clearly not the case. I can have two identical objects. I can point to one and say "famous artist XXX made this, I, who have very little art talent, made the other". People will pay a lot for the first, and not much for the second.
Clearly the object isn't the only thing on sale, the name associated with it, their real or perceived artistic talent, and the history of the object are also part of the value of the object.
Any decent metalsmith could make a VC medal, and if it's well done, someone might give them a few hundred bucks for it. Won't fetch a 6 figure sum at auction like an actual VC medal awarded to a soldier in battle has.
Clearly the object itself is only half the reason art has value. There are many intangibles which can be much more influential.
-
You need to be clear as to what's on sale, and it's only the object.
That's not true, at least for art.
It's possible to make an exact copy of a piece of art, using the same materials and techniques.
The artwork done by a famous artist will still fetch a lot more than the exact copy by a not famous artist.
Pieces of art and their value are more than the objects themselves. They have a history, they have value in the market over and above the intrinsic value of the objects themselves.
-
There appears to be an opportunity in the market place. Blessed be the Cheese makers
Except those guys in the Mainland adverts. They annoy me.
-
I had to read that several times before it made the slightest sense. Then I read the by line and realised McNicker was referring to himself in the third person, I think. Was he interviewing himself? Hard to tell really.
Fairly standard media release 101. Write the story from your angle for the media so they don't have to do any work. The easier you make it for the journalist, the more likely you'll get covered, and that they'll use your media release as the basis for the story.
-
Grant Robertson: What, given that answer, is the Minister’s definition of the core public service?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The bit that is not going to be cut.
I can imagine the look on Grant's face when he got that answer. Half disbelieving, half "let me file that away in my brain and use it to screw you over later".
-
30 is the minimum. Just read [the whole Court of Appeal decision]. It takes time.
I did. The 33 year sentence was inappropriate based on relativities to other cases, reducing it to 30 years.
I'm not really sure what your point is. The appeal judges noted the nature of the crime and the offender as part of the background to their decision to reduce the minimum non-parole period.