The original always beats the replica

What is the significant difference between an original and a replica?

In short, an original was created by someone who was doing the best that they could possibly achieve, working within the constraints of the knowledge and materials available at the time. They were also working to fulfil both psychic and material needs directly connected to the outcome of what they were doing.

Compare that to the replica. Exclude any considerations of how well the replica is actually made, whether someone is simply trying to cash in on a cheap imitation, or is going to great lengths to be as authentic as possible in both the choice of materials and the methods. No matter how authentic, the replica does not have the urgency of the originator to create to fulfil his personal need, neither is he working within the constraints of knowledge that the originator used. It is the difference between trying to solve a riddle, and doing so after having read the answer at the end of the book. You can get there, bet never with the same sense of discovery as when you work it through for yourself.

Jimmy Carter, ex-president of America, spends his time building replicas of early American furniture, using the exact methods and materials of the time and doing so with great accuracy. This is interesting, because he makes each one himself, personally, and is not employing underlings to do part of the work. This highlights the paradox because each piece of furniture is at the same time both a replica and an original – an original of the new series ‘hand-made by Jimmy Carter, ex President’. It is possible to imagine a counterfeiter making an identical piece of furniture and selling it as: ‘hand-made by Jimmy Carter, ex President’. That would be a copy of an original replica!

Why is it important to consider the difference between the two? It is important because, if we pursue the replica without knowing what makes it different from the original, we shall not fulfil our personal and psychic needs. It is simply a matter of being in error, to mistake the imitation for the original, and this means we are moving further away from a clear perception of reality. We continue in the world of illusion.

Earnest hippies in the sixties set out to become subsistence farmers and craftsmen, (one of the reason that the cutler’s art is so well developed in America – people who might otherwise have gone into nuclear physics applied their abilities to making knives). They hoped by this to attain some of the sense of connection with the earth, some of the sense of wisdom and authenticity that they saw in other craftsmen and other subsistence farmers. But they themselves were replicas, no matter how faithfully they stuck to the original processes.

The lifestyles they were following did not arise from necessity, but from choice. Go back to my original differentiation between the original and the replica. The originals were farming to the best of their ability, struggling to survive in a situation in which they could see no alternative, no answer at the back of the book. The craftsmen were working to the limit of their capacity, doing what they had learned, the best they knew how. They did not have degrees in engineering which enabled them to understand the transfer of forces in what they were making. They learned through trial and error and through a constant battle against failure. The were groping in the dark, not working under floodlights. And so they had their personal interaction with their challenges in life. It is this process which gave them that sense of vitality and authenticity that their imitators were looking for.

Can you really imitate authenticity, no matter how honest your intentions? It is an oxymoron.