> even compared to the synthetic materials we are now capable of creating
Aren't like almost all commercially used diamonds these days synthetic as well? As far as I can tell, other than just for the sake of them being "natural" or for having weird impurities that add color to them (read as: subjectively better to some people), no one wants/needs natural ones anymore.
Is “synthetic” the right word?
I thought they are “lab grown”.
(Synthetic implies non-real, when at a molecular level the lab grown are 100% real)
I think synthetic ~ synthesized in this context, as opposed to "not real".
Sense 4a1 here, not 4c: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synthetic
Unrelated, but does anyone else find the adjacent (4b) definition of 'synthetic' to be unusually unusual, in a way few definitions in a dictionary are?
Without anything redacted, definition 4b is "devised, arranged, or fabricated for special situations to imitate or replace usual realities"?
Seems okay to me
We can recreate lots of things, but almost always appreciate the true version better. It’s why it’s cooler to see the Mona Lisa than to see a poster print of it.
Why? As far as I can tell, other than just for the sake of the view being “natural” or having some weird color issues due to time and radiation and oxidization, nobody wants/needs the actual painting anymore.
Reason: because even when it’s identical or even inferior, the touch of nature is just… nice.
A painting has a 3 dimensional texture to the paint, while a poster is inevitably flat. Different paint compositions will also reflect light differently, while a poster won't.
So, yeah, having the real painting has additional value.
I wouldn't pay much for a painting anyway. I have several paintings and posters up on the walls, and they're interesting for a time, and then I just don't see them anymore. They're just part of the wall.
I think you just described the placebo effect!
Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to pick and choose when it effects me, I am a mere mortal, as are many I believe.