3 ms·

You'll never satisfy someone who wants an original. It actually won't even devalue the work much if it was reproduced near exactly. As an artist and art buyer,

by lbotos 11y ago

You'll never satisfy someone who wants an original. It actually won't even devalue the work much if it was reproduced near exactly. As an artist and art buyer, I want originals. It's about linage and the greater art narrative. If it was painted, I want the one the artist touched, bar none. I'm buying pieces in the $400-800 range and I'm of that opinion. Those that are buying in the 400,000-800,000 definitely also share it. (They are also buying as investment.)

return0 11y ago
There's a difference when the artist is dead. By buying an original you become a patron of the artist and generally contribute to artistic development.
- gizmo686 11y ago
  Assume the artist maintains IP over copies of his work, aren't you also contributing to his continued development by buying a copy?
  - return0 11y ago
    thats depends on the kind of art and the audience it attracts. its great for musicians and other popular art forms, but if painters start making art with the mindset of selling many copies of it, many will be disappointed
derefr 11y ago
And I can understand that, too. Modern art especially is all about the narrative context of the work—if not for the statement being made by painting a Mondrian or a Warhol when and where they did, they would be worthless. But that context is something that exists whether or not the original is in front of you. It's something captured in a book about art history, not in the painting itself. I can understand a collector wanting originals. But why does a museum need originals, now that the technology exists to faithfully reproduce the originals? Why not just sell all the works and put up reproductions? If the point is to teach the public about art and its history, you don't need the actual art there (which has probably been restored five times by then anyway, or, if not, has aged to the point that its appearance no longer matches the artist's original intent); you just need an excellent diorama.
- sopooneo 11y ago
  Intellectually I'm with you completely. But I think I wouldn't want to go the the replica Louvre. I have certain stories in my head that I don't want to give up.
- palmer_eldritch 11y ago
  Well, it's something that's been done for the Lascaux cave and more recently with the Chauvet cave in France, because allowing the public in the real caves would damage the paintings on the wall. So if the integrity of the work is at stake, it's definitely something that might be done. But museum visitors are kinda like collectors but with less money: they want to see the real thing, not some cheap replica they could buy to put in their home. Museums don't exist only to teach about art and its history, they exist for people who want the experience of seeing the real thing without being millionaires. Even though most people wouldn't see the difference between the original and the replica and would be subject to some sort of placebo effect if they think the replicas are the originals.

by lbotos 11y ago

return0 11y ago

There's a difference when the artist is dead. By buying an original you become a patron of the artist and generally contribute to artistic development.

gizmo686 11y ago
Assume the artist maintains IP over copies of his work, aren't you also contributing to his continued development by buying a copy?
- return0 11y ago
  thats depends on the kind of art and the audience it attracts. its great for musicians and other popular art forms, but if painters start making art with the mindset of selling many copies of it, many will be disappointed

derefr 11y ago

And I can understand that, too. Modern art especially is all about the narrative context of the work—if not for the statement being made by painting a Mondrian or a Warhol when and where they did, they would be worthless. But that context is something that exists whether or not the original is in front of you. It's something captured in a book about art history, not in the painting itself. I can understand a collector wanting originals. But why does a museum need originals, now that the technology exists to faithfully reproduce the originals? Why not just sell all the works and put up reproductions? If the point is to teach the public about art and its history, you don't need the actual art there (which has probably been restored five times by then anyway, or, if not, has aged to the point that its appearance no longer matches the artist's original intent); you just need an excellent diorama.

sopooneo 11y ago
Intellectually I'm with you completely. But I think I wouldn't want to go the the replica Louvre. I have certain stories in my head that I don't want to give up.
palmer_eldritch 11y ago
Well, it's something that's been done for the Lascaux cave and more recently with the Chauvet cave in France, because allowing the public in the real caves would damage the paintings on the wall. So if the integrity of the work is at stake, it's definitely something that might be done. But museum visitors are kinda like collectors but with less money: they want to see the real thing, not some cheap replica they could buy to put in their home. Museums don't exist only to teach about art and its history, they exist for people who want the experience of seeing the real thing without being millionaires. Even though most people wouldn't see the difference between the original and the replica and would be subject to some sort of placebo effect if they think the replicas are the originals.