tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-423050459919800481.post3732603599155913571..comments2024-03-04T05:26:22.273-08:00Comments on Propnomicon: Vampire Slaying Kit, Part ThreePropnomiconhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02073463298965255652noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-423050459919800481.post-39156887428895766632012-07-02T10:30:08.575-07:002012-07-02T10:30:08.575-07:00In the antique business, this class of non-origina...In the antique business, this class of non-original artifact can sometimes be kindly called a “fantasy piece”. That is a kind of item that is not duplicating exactly any particular piece, but is made specifically to simulate an item, a period & etc. Generally speaking, I have no serious problem with fantasy pieces.<br /><br />What is important here is intent. If the maker created the item or the seller for the intent to mislead and defraud, then it is a fake. If a person knowingly and purposely sells an item that is not original, then it is a fraud. As a note, the father removed a prop is from the maker and the great the number of transfers in sales, the more “real” things seem to become. <br /><br />The great danger of fantasy pieces is exploitation of gray areas of originality to try to skirt the law, by creating a simulation or a piece that is of “an unknown” or “previously unencountered” type. The pivot here is ethics. A fantasy piece gives a certain deniability before the law in the case of a lawsuit. That is: if the piece never existed historically, how could it be a fake. <br /><br />Props, “invented artifacts” and the like, created as art or historical commentary and the like are fine. In fact, I enjoy them a great deal myself. If you mean “deception” as suspension of belief, no matter how brief, yes I agree. A little recreational deception, be it a movie, a play or a prop might even be healthy if it allows you some relaxation or causes you to reexamine an idea. <br /><br />I do think that the museum could have saved itself thousands of dollars by simply commissioning a fine prop maker to produce such a kit for display. It would have allowed the prop maker some satisfaction at having contributed artistic talent and skill to a museum’s display and given the prop maker some publicity as well.CoastConFanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07250561260148656254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-423050459919800481.post-2675953230352752582012-07-01T09:19:42.214-07:002012-07-01T09:19:42.214-07:00You're right - using the word "authentic&...You're right - using the word "authentic" is incredibly problematic. If no original exists of which it's an imitation or forgery, then no context exists in which it can be "authentic," either.<br />It seems to me that any object that intends to deceive, as soon as you put it up for sale without acknowledging that deception, automatically also intends to defraud. I'd say that describing it as "authentic" absolutely makes it fraudulent in this case.bob_dhttp://www.lies-all-lies.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com