It's definitely a 5. I would expect that they'd use the same tool to cast the '9' as they would the '6' (just turned 180 degrees), and the character in question pretty clearly has a different angle connecting the "bulb" to the "feather" than the '9' in the year.
Yes but you can clearly see the etcher cares about kerning. You see how he crammed the the 5/6 right into the 9 to its right? To really get them to snuggle together it’s reasonable he would have adjusted that notch in the top of the 5.
The curve on the 5 tapers off, that same hook on the 6 does not. It looks more like a six to me, but I can see how it might look like a five but without the top cross.
>And then why does it say it was made in Stockholm?
Possibly relevant:
>Falun Mine (Swedish: Falu Gruva) was a mine in Falun, Sweden, that operated for a millennium from the 10th century to 1992. It produced as much as two thirds of Europe's copper needs and helped fund many of Sweden's wars in the 17th century.
I'm always bemused that art aficionados seems to care much more about provenance and prestige than about the art itself. Whether this piece was made by a revered master or a no-name should have no bearing on whether it's "clunky" or "exquisite."
If it's a copy rather than a wholly original work, I can see that affecting the perception of its uniqueness, at least. But I've seen discussion of "rediscovered" paintings from masters that are worthless if they turn out to have been original work from a different artist, even though the quality was good enough to fool professional appraisers.
Think of it this way. Say you were trying to piece together the life story of Stephen Hawking. You'd be happy to come across an unknown/unpublished paper of his, which would be a new plot-point to demonstrate his intelligence and talent in a specific way that was previously unknown. Sure, it may not be his best work. It may not even be that different from other work going on at the same time. But because we are interested in Stephen Hawking's story specifically, it would still be a very valuable piece to keep track of. If you later found out it was an imposter's paper, it would be worthless.
That's not at all comparable. The value of art is purely subjective. The only reason we're interested in (say) Giambologna at all is because his art has some ineffable subjective quality that the art of his competitors lacks --better "aesthetics" (or whatever you want to call it). So if you can't tell the difference between a Giambologna and an Arglebargle based on its aesthetics, what difference does it make whether it's a Giambologna or an Arglebargle? It's like arguing over whether Shakespeare's plays were really written by Shakespeare or by someone else with the same name.
The reason we're interested in Hawking has nothing to do with aesthetics, it has to do with science. The original works of a scientist may be of historical interest, but they are of no scientific interest. The reason we're interested in Hawking in the first place has nothing to do with the details of his original works, whereas the reason we're interested in Giambologna has everything to do with it.
People were interested in Hawking more because of his disability and public outreach efforts than his scientific papers. Most people who are interested in him can't understand his work, and the people who do understand his work have higher regard for scientists that the general public shows no interest in.
That's how it works and is why people buy reproductions. There is a huge market of reproduction. Every museum sells them in their shop.
For the original art, the main drive is its monetary value. Many piece of arts by famous artists are locked up in vaults. Not even locked up in expensive houses of the ultra rich for them to admire. In locked obscure vaults, gaining value until resold.
I guess the value of everything is purely subjective. But if you suggest the only legitimate value of art is the immediate aesthetic impression, then I disagree. The historical context is definitely part of what makes art interesting.
> I guess the value of everything is purely subjective.
No, that's not true. The value of scientific knowledge, for example, is in its power to allow us to make reliable predictions about our environment and the consequences of our actions. That's not subjective.
> The historical context is definitely part of what makes art interesting.
Sure, but the historical interest in a work of art should follow as a consequence of the (subjective) quality of the art, not the other way around. If I were to make a painting, no one would (or should) care, but not because my painting would not have an interesting historical context. It's because I have no artistic talent and any painting I would make would be a bad painting. And 500 years from now it would still be a bad painting.
To use a more realistic example: Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill were both painters, but no one remembers them for their art because it wasn't very good despite having an interesting historical context. Quality art creates an interesting historical context, no the other way around. Or at least that's how it ought to work IMHO.
"Us" and "our" are tokens of subjectivity. If "value" can be used meaningfully only if it refers to some subject, if things are only ever valuable "to me" or "to us", then value is a subjective determination. And to whomever says it is not worth to him, it is not worth to him.
Yes, all that is true, but think this through: because value is only relative to "us" then then a pre-requisite for value to exist is for "us" to exist. Being able to make reliable predictions about our environment helps us exist, i.e. helps us survive and reproduce, so that has value independent of anyone's opinion about anything.
I think a better comparision would be a manuscript about calculus.
If it was produced before Newton/Leibniz it's remarkable, otherwise well... who cares?
Well, the provenance and the prestige greatly affects the price of a work, that's why people care about it.
It's even less understandable with contemporary artists: some are the critics' darlings and their works sell for mind-blowing amounts, while others who are arguably equally talented can't make a living from their art. And it doesn't have to be paintings or sculpture, it's the same for e.g. musicians...
I deal with much the same thing as a Shakespeare scholar. You'd like the works to stand on their own, but there is something to be gained from studying the corpus as it evolved. When I go to perform a play I treat it as if the audience is seeing a brand new work for the first time, but my process is informed by what I know of the other works and the context in which it was written -- including what I know of the author.
It's unfortunate that conspiracy cranks take that up as a power trip rather than a serious way to study the plays themselves. And that there's a countervailing effort (dating back to the author's lifetime) to attribute lots of things to him -- it would be great if Edward III really were by Shakespeare, but the evidence is circumstantial at best. We can study it to see if it informs us in any useful way, but the combination of weak attribution and weak play means we don't get much of anywhere.
Look at the coinage of Elizabeth I for an unambiguous contemporary example. The top sections of the "5s" vary substantially-- some are nearly square, some are an obtuse angle which looks not that far from this figure.
The Arabic numbers took a long time to standardize-- you were still seeing the weird early "4" that looks like the nodern one tipped back 45 degrees not that much earlier.
57 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] threadThe 5 below has an extra rightward-facing part on the top that the 5/6 doesn't
And then why does it say it was made in Stockholm?
Possibly relevant:
>Falun Mine (Swedish: Falu Gruva) was a mine in Falun, Sweden, that operated for a millennium from the 10th century to 1992. It produced as much as two thirds of Europe's copper needs and helped fund many of Sweden's wars in the 17th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Mine
If it's a copy rather than a wholly original work, I can see that affecting the perception of its uniqueness, at least. But I've seen discussion of "rediscovered" paintings from masters that are worthless if they turn out to have been original work from a different artist, even though the quality was good enough to fool professional appraisers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwCQDbzBerI
The reason we're interested in Hawking has nothing to do with aesthetics, it has to do with science. The original works of a scientist may be of historical interest, but they are of no scientific interest. The reason we're interested in Hawking in the first place has nothing to do with the details of his original works, whereas the reason we're interested in Giambologna has everything to do with it.
For the original art, the main drive is its monetary value. Many piece of arts by famous artists are locked up in vaults. Not even locked up in expensive houses of the ultra rich for them to admire. In locked obscure vaults, gaining value until resold.
No, that's not true. The value of scientific knowledge, for example, is in its power to allow us to make reliable predictions about our environment and the consequences of our actions. That's not subjective.
> The historical context is definitely part of what makes art interesting.
Sure, but the historical interest in a work of art should follow as a consequence of the (subjective) quality of the art, not the other way around. If I were to make a painting, no one would (or should) care, but not because my painting would not have an interesting historical context. It's because I have no artistic talent and any painting I would make would be a bad painting. And 500 years from now it would still be a bad painting.
To use a more realistic example: Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill were both painters, but no one remembers them for their art because it wasn't very good despite having an interesting historical context. Quality art creates an interesting historical context, no the other way around. Or at least that's how it ought to work IMHO.
Churchill’s also sell for quite a bit.
It's made me wonder why I even go to art galleries where I'll see hundreds of works of art but only remember maybe a handful.
It's even less understandable with contemporary artists: some are the critics' darlings and their works sell for mind-blowing amounts, while others who are arguably equally talented can't make a living from their art. And it doesn't have to be paintings or sculpture, it's the same for e.g. musicians...
That sounds like a chicken/egg problem. Do people care because it affects the price, or does it affect the price because people care?
It's unfortunate that conspiracy cranks take that up as a power trip rather than a serious way to study the plays themselves. And that there's a countervailing effort (dating back to the author's lifetime) to attribute lots of things to him -- it would be great if Edward III really were by Shakespeare, but the evidence is circumstantial at best. We can study it to see if it informs us in any useful way, but the combination of weak attribution and weak play means we don't get much of anywhere.
In 1597 the artist would have been 68. In 1697 he would have been 168.
What is actually the topic of debate here? Surely not whether this bronze casting was created by this artist?
The Arabic numbers took a long time to standardize-- you were still seeing the weird early "4" that looks like the nodern one tipped back 45 degrees not that much earlier.