A lot of what is accepted as ‘original’ art are objects of which there are more than one copy. I’m thinking of lithographs, but I’ve seen duplicate sculptures from the same mold, as well. Anyway, is there a commonly agreed upon limit to how many copies of a work there can be before it ceases to be ‘original’ art and is considered just a ‘poster’ or its sculptural equivalent?
I don’t have a direct answer, but I do know that art shows frequently limit the edition size for eligible work. Say, a print run of 60, 100 or 250. I think those are the numbers I’ve seen.
Posters are made in a vastly different way, I don’t know if there’s a point where a lithograph is a “poster”.
It is possible to make a limited edition poster. There are a few publishers I’m aware of makeing hand pulled stone lithography reproductions of vintage advertising posters. These are numbered and sold as limited, made in editions of under 500.
An easier distinction for me is limited edition and open edition.
Now, an artist or publisher can make a “limited” edition of 10,000, which to me, and several of my colleagues wades pretty far into poster territory.
So it seems that although I’ve posted in your thread I don’t really have an answer either.
I don’t know for sure, but I think this is the key…that it depends on how it is reproduced. I don’t think lithographs can ever be considered posters…they are two different things. If my memory serves me correctly from Art History 101, techniques such as lithography can only be used a certain number of times before the quality deteriorates, so an artist wouldn’t have an infinite number of copies made. Once a work is no longer made with lithography and is mass-produced the way, say a poster of an oil painting would be, then it is a poster.