The truth and the secondary image

I often argue with colleagues about visualization-about its secondary or truth. And here's what I think: borrowing can be true. The efforts undertaken by the master, trying to reach the perfection that was originally created by someone else, redeems a lot. Here's an example - here Amazai - the Japanese art of making candy in the form of realistic fish and animals that is passed from generation to generation a little more than 1200 years. Here is Shunri Tezuka, the owner of the ameshin candy store, which he inherited from his father, and his father from his grandfather, who in turn... and so on until some Tezuka ancestor brought it from China during the Heian era, and then another ancestor perfected it in the Edo era. Now in China, the technique has been lost for about 700 years, and in Japan it has become a national treasure. Still, it is cool that the moment of borrowing does not affect the perfection of the work. Look - there is something to see. And-don't forget. It's candy. Burnt sugar and food coloring. Beautiful huh? What if the story is told differently? If nothing hereditary there not was, dude was born in Chiba, the contestant the most confectionery on Asakusa founded 4 year ago himself, remaking from warehouse and now have him 7 pupils. And on English, as and rely, negligible sumnyashesya, writes, that this traditional Japanese art? Does that change anything? Something can change the words about the tradition, if the fish are beautiful, and the cranes are quite obscene? If there is no traditional craft in China or Japan, and Gypsies sold lollipops at all times in all countries-that's their tradition? M? All at once on another and it is a fake and swindle and in General it is all secondary? Here is a difficult question. Well, for me at least.