Dr. Sirr, a radiologist, observed that violins and other instruments produce CAT scans that are distinct and very detailed. He and a partner scanned hundreds of musical instruments for two years. Afterwards, him and 2 violin makers and borrowed a 307 year-old Stradivarius violin from the US library of congress, producing CAT scans of the instrument. The team then used the information from the CAT scans to build three "nearly exact copies," replicating the wormholes and cracks that give each violin its own distinct sound.
The knowledge issues at hand are the originality, value, uniqueness, and history. What makes an item original and unique? What is original and unique? Should a unique item be allowed to retain its status by preventing its replication?
Unique in the English language is "existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics" (Dictionary.com). Each individual Stradivarius violin is unique because it is hand made, and the characteristics and weathering of the materials and composition all contribute to a sound that is equally unique from other violins - even other Stradivariuses. The replication of an individual violin by Dr. Sirr is not a completely exact copy, so until technologies are invented that allow for absolute replication, there should not be many issues with defining what is a unique Stradivarius, seeing how all Stradivariuses have been exposed to different conditions and therefore are all different from each other. If we go with this argument route, however, then everything in the world is unique, because at some point in time, two objects that start out the same will be exposed to different factors and become unique in even a fraction of a second. So should uniqueness be decided by the point of origin? To an extent, yes. My opinion is that items that are of the same origin and all perform the exact same job should be called a unique line of items offered by only one source. If the items are of the same origin, but they perform differently, then they should also be called unique, but to the greatest degree.
Related issues include the "repro" gear manufactured by China - Chinese companies are copying American tactical and safety products without license, but the production methods and materials utilized are sometimes the same. Do the American-made products have the right to be called unique, seeing how Chinese products are not tested nor technically legal?
In this post, you focus on the area of language. I believe there is also the question of sense perception. If our human capabilities are unable to sense the difference between the sounds of the two violins, does it make the two of them unique from each other, particularly as the purpose of a violin is to act as an instrument of sound.
ReplyDeleteYou also argue: "The replication of an individual violin by Dr. Sirr is not a completely exact copy, so until technologies are invented that allow for absolute replication, there should not be many issues with defining what is a unique Stradivarius." Does it make it okay to replicate as long as it is a completely faithful replication? I believe this also introduces the area of ethics. By many, it is perceived as unethical to replicate the work of others.
I also believe that the real life issue that you stated at the end may not be completely relevant, as there may be some false analogy. The ending real life issue involves the problems of license and replicating the work that belongs to others, involving copyright and the law. Ethically and legally, replication should not be allowed. However, the same is not applicable to the violin as the creator is no longer living.