Home > Art, Texts > Collectors And Originals

Collectors And Originals

May 31st, 2017

”Collecting” is an interesting (it seems interesting to me anyhow) concept, because it may be the last black-and-white realm that still exists in our World?

Not plauged by ”maybes”, ”I percive it in that way” or my own personal favorite; the deconstructive backlash: ”everything is relative…”.

Well, no that is not the case and once for all that is NOT what the general theory of relativity means or ever entailed, but that is another story all together.

Is your collection complete [Y] or [N]?

To begin with: either you are or you are not a collector. There is no in-between, sure as in any other human undertaking there will be some foolish enough trying to bridge the gap. They all fail miserably, naturally.

I personally have never met anyone successful in that endeavour. You may succeed in convincing the one part, but how on earth will convince the other? It will always fail and it will be a doomed project.

What governs humans? I would like to write ”men”, because the word ”men” is more aesthetic and handles more easily in text. I.e. if I write ”men” in a general sense I mean people. But, sadly I do know that is not the case any more?

I have never made a difference between, men and humans? Why would that make sense to begin with? That in it is self is somewhat interesting… words.

In my view all collectors seem to have at least one thing in common, and extreme demand on details, and possibly ”object”, but that kind of detours from my original thought. So, what is this all about now? First off, I am a text book example of a collector. It would seem that I’m not alone, but that is not subject on hand.

The collection may never become complete, but that is not necessarily the most acute problem for the ”collector”. What? But, when will the collection become complete? Probably never…

I inherited some not new books. Among then an original from 1932, helas it has been redressed and it is a repress of unknown origin for now (it was made in the early 1930’s as far as I can tell). I have several copies of the very same book, issues from the 1960’s as well. That would be the issue I first read.

They’re books, printed paper, art of work, is it not the content that should count? Is it not sweet though? An “original” unaltered copy from 1932? Esentially a copy that no one has touched since 1932. Apart from being an object. Is that really a book? A paperback from 1932?

An original paperback copy of this publication from 1932? The paper back original? Well, do you have 50000 euro to spare? You will buying an excellent book, a groundbreaking piece of literature in French. However, hopefully, with a bit of luck you will find the very same text in your library or book store (if you happen to have one or if you can find one) for no cost or 5 euro?

It may actually be to my advantage that I can both read and write, in more than one language.

PS. English is not my ”first” language. My first language is Swedish. I guess that my second language is actually French. Do you know Swedish? No? Don’t worry almost no one does.

Finally, utterly and completely unrelated: a big thank you to everyone and all pushing the beats!

Categories: Art, Texts Tags:
Comments are closed.