Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:10:00 +1000
From: "adrian" <adrian.miles-AT-rmit.edu.au>
Subject: Re: art/capital


Responding to the message of Sun, 20 Jun 1999 10:09:35 +1000
from Edwin Coleman <edwincoleman-AT-mail.bigpond.com>:

> I would question if one can "understand" simulation in this way : a 'copy
> without an original' is a contradition in terms.
> The only reason for caling Baudrillard's examples "copies" is to create
> semiotic confusion.
> 

so if i hold a copy of a book in my hand it presupposes and requires an 
original? what would the original book be?

if all copies were destroyed except mine. and we reproduced that. has 
anything changed? 

if i visit a web site that dynamically generates pages on the basis of my 
request (any search engine) is the original the page displayed from the 
server, the page cached on my machine, or something else? what is original 
here? 

if i record off air (digitally, lets say via the ABC's satellite feed) the 
video footage provided by a 'smart' bomb live, where is an 'orginal' and 
where is the 'reproduction'?

i'm not looking for an argument. just interested.

adrian miles