Intention
Why is copying so terrible? From a young age, school children are constantly told to be aware of the peril and consequences of copying, more commonly known as cheating. But, can copying be good? When I take notes from a textbook, I am copying a version of the text, but it’s not harmful to me or the textbook. There is no bad intention in the copied version. And this is where the distinction between a “good” and “bad” copy comes into play especially within the art world. Scott defines a fake as a copy or work from an artist that is not made to be passed as genuine while a forgery is trying to pass the same work as an original. Thus, bad intention is generally seen as “bad” within the art world. But, good intentions are also still quite controversial.
In the case of the Egyptian statue Queen Tetisheri at the British Museum, there was not an evil intention to deceive the viewers, but a lack of knowledge and provenance. It was displayed for over 100 years, millions of visitors seeing it and passing it off as authentic in their head. Through the course of 100 years, the Queen Tetisheri has now created its own history, its own context, and its own authenticity. Is it so bad that there was a single reproduction in a museum? What harm has the display of Queen Tetisheri done to the art world? Of course, this is a slippery slope; not all works of art and artifacts in a museum should be a reproduction, but where do we draw the line?
Is there a line that can be drawn that could suffice to both sides of this replication argument? In a similar case, where does the intangible lay within the context of originality and authenticity? With the contemporary art movement of conceptual art, the art belongs in the mind and lacks the more physical, traditional forms of art. Sherrie Levine’s work of After Walker Evans is a complete challenge to this idea of authenticity, intangibility, and authorship. Both arguments regarding the authenticity of the work are valid. I guess this is what art is for, to constantly question and push the boundaries of our own thoughts. The idea of having some sort of boundaries and categories of original art and reproductions have now become so blurred and discombobulated that these questions are even more impossible to answer. In my own opinion, the intention of reproduction is what matters the most. Thus, a good intention needs to be validated through the masses of people as well as evil intention.
In the case of the Dunhuang wall paintings, there is no other method of preservation than to make a copy, the organic materials and environment of the wall paintings will disappear with time. The Dunhuang Academy Art Department has produced many copyists for the sake of this idea of preservation and replication. When Lou Jie writes upon her experience of replicating the wall, she brings forth a similar spirit and idea of an artist, not just copying through a scientific method, but trying to capture the emotion and mindfulness of the centuries of ancient masters. There is a certain intangible quality that these copyists seek to preserve through their replications. Thus, the copyists create their own authenticity to their reproductions of art. Who’s to say their art isn’t as important or authentic as the old masters? Not me, surely. But what I do know is that the idea of authenticity lies in the eyes and mind of the viewer
