10 ms·
I'm thrilled the see this discussion on here, and you're very correct. There's nothing stopping the artist from making more digital prints. And this is currentl
by ckozlowski 6y ago
I'm thrilled the see this discussion on here, and you're very correct. There's nothing stopping the artist from making more digital prints. And this is currently why at art shows you see original, physical media pieces (oil, acrylic, watercolor) going for high prices, while digital art has seemingly no collectability.
Some years ago, I was at an art convention https://ix-online.com/default.asp https://ix-online.com/default.asp) and was discussing this with a couple of collectors one evening, asking if they'd ever buy an "original" digital piece. And they indicated that they would, but only if it either had some sort of embellishment making it truly original as a print (Artist signature on the print, maybe a message or small sketch on the back, etc) or, some sort of agreement, be it binding or on pain of loss of reputation, that more prints in the series wouldn't be made. In other words, something to make it rare.
The only digital pieces I've seen go in excess of four figures are ones that have been "hand embellished", that is, the artist drew their image on the computer, printed it, and then went back over with a physical medium to give it the look of traditional media. And since that can (currently?) only be done by hand, that makes it unique, and therefor to collectors, valuable. And these works are not only valuable in the sense that the individual enjoys it, but many works appreciate and grown in value as the artist grows and so become an investment as others now want to own that unique work.
I'm married to a fantasy illustrator who works in a digital medium, and while I'd love to see her art be juried into the same showcases I see reserved for the physical medium, the flawless reproducibility that's possible seems to deter collectors more than some certificate that says "I own this" does. Perhaps over time that digital signature will eventually be valued more to the collectors than the rarity, but in everything I've seen, for an art collector, holding up your blockchain when everyone else can fulfill their demand for that work and obtain the same quality is cold comfort.
I'm really interested to see if anything becomes of these, but currently I'm more skeptical than optimistic.
- biztos 6y agoWell some digital stuff gets Art World love, just not most of it. Museums have been grappling with a lot of these questions for years, at least since video art made it into collections. And on a conceptual level I’d say for longer. What does it even mean to own a Sol Lewitt wall drawing?[0] There is a whole wall of art at SFMOMA that is less “owned” than an NFT-backed goofy little “punk” graphic. So far it doesn’t seem like the curatorial voices have made it into the NFT conversation. I found it interesting that Beeple hedged and actually made an artifact to go with the digital version of his daily editions. The gallery I bought prints from last year has some interesting takes on it, they are only dealing in digital art but they are a (small) physical gallery.[1] I also have no idea where this is going, I was barely paying any attention until a week ago despite having an artist friend who’s involved in blockchain stuff. But I definitely find the conversations interesting! Learning new stuff almost daily now... [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_LeWitt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_LeWitt [1]: http://mymuseum.co/ http://mymuseum.co/