BETWEEN FOUR JUNCTIONS

Yale psychology and cognitive science professors Paul Bloom and George Newman conducted a study in which five experiments, involving several hundred participants, were carried out, and all unanimously proved just this; the veracity of the creative process behind original art infallibly causes people to place more value in it. So why is this the case?

I would argue that a largely contributing factor is that of the artist’s intention that is, conceptually if not visually, contained in original art in a way that it is not in a copy. Even if we cannot sensibly perceive it, the intention behind an original piece of art is to communicate something, or portray something, or purge something; the intention behind a copy is merely to copy that original as well as possible. It lacks the human aspect of art; although art created by a robot could technically be very good, I believe we would probably find this art lacking in emotiveness or impact, because it is the humanity contained in art, the human intention contained in art, which causes us to value it. While it would be unjust to deem manmade copies robotic, they have a lesser degree of that human quality to them, because they lack the intention behind them.

Furthermore, an original piece of art is comprised of the endeavour that goes into producing it, the effort that is put into the process of creating something out of an authentic idea – in a sense, creating something from nothing. Producing art is the manifestation of our attempts to ‘play god’; to create something, something individual and authentic and, above all, original.

When artwork is original, it contains within it not just the visual output of that originality, but the authenticity and innovation that lies behind it. It contains the genuineness of the idea, intention and emotion invested into the art by the artist. It contains that aspect of humanity, of the artist themselves, and the generosity of self that is required of the artist in order for these aspects to find their way into the art. And it is this which draws us to engage with art, this which allows us to be affected by it.

What is more, this originality makes the art more real. The intention, the endeavour, the initial idea – all these factors are part of the art, and so without them, a copy becomes less authentic, less real, than an original. And reality is something which, across history, we seem to place intrinsic value in. As far back as Ancient Greek philosophy, we see this notion arise: Plato’s Divided Line metaphysics, differentiating the intelligible world from the visible world, was concerned with outlining the infinitely higher value of the former, owing to it being that which Plato perceived to be truly real (the world of the forms). In fact, metaphysics is in itself a questioning of what is real and what is not, of the nature of reality; and ubiquitously it seems to be taken as self-evident that what is real is more important, more valuable, simply more preferable, than that which isn’t. French rationalist philosopher Rene Descartes’s ontological argument is widely criticised for making logical leaps; but his presupposition that being real is a necessary precondition of perfection is not generally considered to be one of them. We seem to comfortably accept as fact the idea that being real is better than not being real; that something real is preferable to something not real, or – essentially for this argument – something less real. And so perhaps the reason that original art is more valued than copies is because it is more real than copies.

Theatre practitioner Bertolt Brecht aimed, through his epic theatre, to communicate a message to the audience. His plays presented acute and powerful social commentaries, and provoked his audiences to change the way they lived their lives, or thought about their lives, as a result of watching them. Brecht believed that what makes theatre meaningful is the message it can communicate; I would expand upon this to say that what makes fine art meaningful may also be just this. But what makes original art more meaningful is the process and intention behind it, the catharsis it may provide for the artist in creating it, the authenticity of the idea and the creativity that enabled that idea to come to fruition. Copies of art may still relay a message to the onlooker, but only the original contains the intention of that message being relayed, the passion of the artist that provoked them to try to relay it. And so, original art is preferable to an excellent copy; it is preferable because it is more real, because it is more human, and, ultimately, because it is more meaningful.