Re: Xhirley (12/6)

When it comes to Adrian Piper, she can be extremely confusing in which some of her theories may not make sense or make some sense to the average reader. She does state that the "spatiotemporal" location does make each object unique because one object cannot also occupy the same area at the same time. This does make complete sense when an individual breaks down the word because this large word, is more like two words fused together into a fancier or proper word. Personally this word has never crossed my mind as even a real one because I strongly believe that this word is fake, authenticated by Adrian Piper, an intelligent philosopher. However not to get off track, if the spatiotemporal location did not exist, there are many characteristics that would make an object unique. For example on a Biological Basis, humans all have unique traits and chromosomes that differ from one another. No exact person is going to have the same genetics as anyone else in the world, even twins that share similar genetics whether identical or fraternal. So physically and genetically we have established that any individual does differ "genetically". But what are some characteristics that would make art unique? Well again, any painting will not be the same physically but the ideas of the certain individual (artist) differ dramatically? When we view the Mona Lisa for example, we tend to just applaud the painting due to that Leonardo DaVinci painted it, but do we also ask ourselves, what was the artist thinking at the time? What was he/she feeling when this masterpiece was created and does the Mona Lisa reflect the ideas, emotions, and well being of the artist. As Piper stated that the art object (masterpiece etc.) is not what is unique, it is the individual who created this object that is unique. In this situation I feel as if Adrian Piper had kind of contradicted herself by stating that the artist is unique but also the spatiotemporal location makes the object unique. Does this situation contradict her theory of what makes art unique or does it add to the theory? But to answer you last question, being "unique" does have its category that may possibly have a negative connotation. Being unique is inevitable because everything in the world is unique from each other, even a forgery which is unique from the other forgeries if analyzed at a microscopic level. In general, there is nothing wrong with unique because if this world did not experience some type of "uniqueness", then everything would be alike, with no personally whatsoever, kind of like the movie "Pleasantville".