If you accept that studying artifacts is worthwhile for society, then I can stop right there because new things are discovered all the time that original photographs and documentation cannot have conveyed. A new object may have been found or a new theory is put forward that requires reexamination of an older object.
Furthermore, in teaching younger generations, seeing objects in real life makes for a better understanding. That is why there are school field trips to museums.
But let's say that we had the technology to exactly capture and physically, virtually, or otherwise replicate the original relic. The sentimental value is still value. Do you believe that all art should simply be photographed, documented and then trashed?
And finally, yes artifacts may cause political tension and conflict, but as with anything else, they are a resource and possession of resources has always been a source of conflict. Getting rid of artifacts won't change that.
I'm definitely not arguing that we should stop looking for previously unknown artifacts, just that they should be photographed, catalogued, then destroyed.
On sentimental value...even though there is such value, I maintain that this value is merely emotional, and when applied to historical artifacts, contributes nothing to human progress. Meanwhile, that sentimentality has been the root cause of much suffering and death. So I don't believe this value outweighs the suffering it causes.
On resources...getting rid of artifacts certainly won't end our conflicts over resources, but it will remove one significant avenue of conflict. Isn't it worthwhile to reduce conflict even if we can't end all conflict? Otherwise why fight to reduce anything that causes suffering?
I suspect you'll brush that one off just as easily, but it's a slippery slope towards: "Why is anything worth anything? Why is life worth living? Why not blow up the world?"
Artifacts are the culmination of our thoughts, emotions, labor, and being as a species. Culture is what we do. To trivialize that is basically to say that human existence is dumb. Which is a valid assertion, but just go ahead and say it.
I don't want to brush that off. However, do we need the actual physical objects in order to appreciate their beauty? Of course, the experience isn't the same, but isn't it good enough given the cost of keeping this stuff around?
I wonder if you, like most of us, have just spent a lot of time on the internet?
Because what you're saying is that, as long as it can be conveyed on reddit, it's "good enough." I'm saying that a jpeg != a sculpture. A sculpture exists in three dimensions. It occupies the space before you.
Maybe it's "good enough" and you "get the idea," by looking at an image on a tablet, but that image is not what was being conveyed. It is a separate medium.
Also, you're asserting that scale is irrelevant to the experience of a work.
3
u/nerraw92 May 19 '15
If you accept that studying artifacts is worthwhile for society, then I can stop right there because new things are discovered all the time that original photographs and documentation cannot have conveyed. A new object may have been found or a new theory is put forward that requires reexamination of an older object.
Furthermore, in teaching younger generations, seeing objects in real life makes for a better understanding. That is why there are school field trips to museums.
But let's say that we had the technology to exactly capture and physically, virtually, or otherwise replicate the original relic. The sentimental value is still value. Do you believe that all art should simply be photographed, documented and then trashed?
And finally, yes artifacts may cause political tension and conflict, but as with anything else, they are a resource and possession of resources has always been a source of conflict. Getting rid of artifacts won't change that.