The perishability of copying

I am currently a student at the Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism (FAUT), in Timișoara. I see Architecture as a tool/process, rather than a job or academic subject. I also believe that only by encapsulating in our everyday views the plurality of studies and fields, we can achieve a higher degree of understanding context. My background developed specific key points in my current views. Growing up, I visited Greece. For many years the Peloponnese, with its archeological sites and museums were the only context I knew about Art and History. Also, from a very young age I am painting, and combined with the experienced landscapes transformed into an adoration for the Mediterranean basin, alongside the people and places we read in Herodotus or Pausanias. The passion for History/Anthropology was rising. During these three years that passed, I became more aware about myself and the city that I live in. To understand that the cosmopolitan urban character had an influence on me, but not as evident as the Italian city. Seeing cities like Venice and Florence in my academic years, made me attach to the field of Art History. I developed a sort of relationship between me and the artwork. Now I try to synthetize and materialize all the experiences I had. It is a very hard task, and at the same time misinterpreted. Because experimenting, I consider, should be a state of mind over someone’s life. Knowledge never ends, because it’s a process.

A world soaking in success’s rush, even if is treated shallowly, transforms the cover into an operator that dilutes the origin, the idea. Bringing the epigones in front of an increasingly disinformed and uncultured public, has as a result the (emanation) cover’s profile as something original, unseen and unheard of. It doesn’t take much time, not even a speck from a generation, and the fashion changes. Another cover appears, a lengthy waiting row on behalf of those that rediscovered a brave new world. Nowadays, those who desire to create face syncope, the public’s attention being geared towards new copies of copies. In terms of technology, cloning being possible, the cover clones repeatedly, sequential. Images and rhythms that are brought to the state of high art, by a bygone world. Still, technologically speaking, the clone cannot and cannot return to what was the original. This is why the cover is perishable. Mankind’s generations built what we name as `humanity`. The stone and mortar of this edifice are embedded in theorems, experiments, material and mental representations. The monument cannot be copied, humanity isn’t classifiable. The foundation is solid (only an atomic war or a meteorite, and even a virus can break that). Instead, we have problems with the cover, that changes and can change accordingly to every fashion – reinterpretation of principles. This is why `the point of view` defends itself as a law and it also bends the proprieties of an artwork, forging through a cover`s occurrence. Of course, it’s not phenomenon’s fault, but rather of authors, suspects of vanity, not showing the sources, without an uncover of the original. When it unveils, an abrupt appearance of the acquisition of copyrights is seen (not forgetting the long-debated media common sense). I would like to put into perspective these manifestations as being perishable. They will never be Roman or Renaissance copies. It is true that mankind returned to search in history’s chest, but those who do it for polishing, do not appear in the `frontline`, not even for a generation.