Too bad Walter Benjamin isn’t around to provide his take on the OP.
I’m not talking about poster reproductions or cheap repaintings, I’m talking about expert, forgery style reproductions in which even experts have problems distinguishing between them.
And, while in art for individual collection, status and rarity certainly have a very strong role to play. I’m talking about art exhibited in art museums. Anyone with a few bucks can go the Lourve, the Uffuzi or the Guggeinheim and view the works of art so it’s hardly elitist. But, there is a majesty and awe in those paintings that can’t be accurately captred by posters but can be captured by a skilled reproduction. Texture was one thing mentioned but also, some of the things are damn huge, easily 20ft or more across. Practically the only places capable of displaying such works are art museums. Also, I suspect that even a good reproduction would be quite expensive, maybe $10,000 - $100,000 which puts it out of the range of most home purchasers.
CrankyAsAnOldMan: I dispute that people want to see artworks in the original form as much they want to see historical artifacts. For one thing, almost the sole worth of a historical artifact is extrinsic. Lincon’s top hat would be just another top hat if it wern’t for the fact that Lincon wore it, it has no intrinsic value. On the other hand, art does have significant intrinsic value in that it is beautiful to look at. While a copy of Lincon’s top hat would just be an ordinary top hat, a copy of a Da Vinci or a Delacroix would still be beautiful.
I certainly know that given the choice of seeing some of the finest copies in the world at my local art gallery for $5 + $2 parking fee would be much more preferable to seeing the originals for $5 + $3000 travel expenses.
Totally. So, to answer your OP’s subject, who is doing the insisting? Who is ‘we’? If you view art as a consumer product, then clearly reproductions of various quality will satisfy many people… like other consumer products. Maybe it is just the die-hard, flag-waving, baseball-mom-and-apple pie American in me, but that’s how I look at art.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone opened up The Louvre II in, like, Cleveland.
But don’t art museums sometimes have reproductions? I swear I recall some non-original Rodan at a museum I’ve been to…
That’s exactly what I’m trying to figure out. Is it the artists who refuse to let people copy their works? Is it art museums who refuse to let other museums have a copy of their work? Is it art museums who refuse to display copies of other museums works? Or is it consumers who refuse to go see brilliant copies over mediocre originals.
Good question - personally, I don’t think it would be very sucessful (although I do think there could be a market for it that does reasonably well). Why?
Well, think about it this way - what makes the original more “authentic” or valuable than a reproduction? Why do people still go to music concerts, when they can by a CD and listen to the same music in the comfort of their home multiple times (and at a cheaper price)?
Why do people still go to sporting events when they can stay home and watch it at home for free (if one is of the opinion that sports can be elevated to an artform)?
Why do people visit the Grand Canyon when you can see photographs, or television programs, or movies that depict it without ever having to go there?
Now, if the Mona Lisa or The Pieta were to be exhibited at an art museum in Cleveland, OH, I can almost guarantee that people would flock to see these great works of art in person (you can probably think of actual examples - one that I remember distinctly was the Tutenkhamen exhibition in the US).
I don’t think it necessarily a museums decision to not display copies of other museums works of art. What would be the point? Part of a museum’s cache is it’s exclusivity or selectiveness. And part of it is driven by the museum’s patrons (contributors and visitors) to maintain exclusivity or selectiveness. If you remove that exclusivity/selectiveness, then you remove part of it’s “authenticity”. Why go to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa when you can go see a reproduction at the Pompidou? You could, but you would then reduce the exclusivity/selectiveness of both the Louvre and the Pompidou. Showing a reproduction of the Mona Lisa at the Pompidou could actually have a negative impact - all the Louvre had to do would use a marketing campaign against the Pompidou. “If you want to see the REAL Mona Lisa, come to the Louvre.”
Or for that matter, why are tribute bands such a small niche? You go to a friggin’ colloseum to see Metallica on a big screen because you’re so far away there’s no way to see the actual band, or you see some tribute band in a bar and hear roughly the same thing.
That’s a really interesting example of what I think is the same phenomena of the OP.
Negative? Hmmm… how many people would like to see the Mona Lisa, but cannot afford time/money for international travel? Would this be a negative impact on the Louvre, or would it be the effect of treating art as a commodity?
Not very many are likely to travel to Paris to visit the Louvre just to see the Mona Lisa; however, if you were to bring the Mona Lisa to, say, the Met in New York, how many people do you think would show? Or if the Mona Lisa went on “tour” - it was exhibited across the US in various museums. How many people would be willing to go if the real Mona Lisa was going to be exhibited at their local museum? I think a lot more than if the local museum only exhibited a reproduction of the Mona Lisa.
The Louvre benefits from a marketing position in that the Mona Lisa isn’t likely to go on tour, so to speak. So if you want to see the real Mona Lisa, then you HAVE to go to the Louvre. The Louvre can market it’s exclusivity as having the authentic Mona Lisa. And people are willing to pay for that exclusivity (by going to the Louvre and seeing the Mona Lisa). They will also pay for that exclusivity of seeing the real Mona Lisa by going to the local museum where it is is being exhibited.
So from a purely economic standpoint, it wouldn’t be in the interest of the Louvre to allow the Mona Lisa to go on tour (unless, of course, it could make arrangements that it somehow “profits” - either monetarily or socially in terms of goodwill/ promoting the reputation of the Louvre).
And negative in the sense that the Louvre can use it’s exclusivity to it’s advantage over other museums showing reproductions. The Pompidou probably wouldn’t exhibit a reproduction - they know that people in Paris can see the real Mona Lisa at the Louvre (they could, but what would be the point? Part of the attraction of seeing art in a particular museum is its exclusivity).
Now, the Met in New York might show a reproduction and be able to withstand any kind of pressure from the Louvre (in terms of marketing exclusivity). And it’s probably a good ploy if it’s marketed carefully. But I don’t think the Met would make a major marketing ploy to attract people to their museum just to see a reproduction of the Mona Lisa. Or if they did, it would be to draw people to the Met to see all the other fine works of authentic art THEY have (which are exclusive to the Met).
To give somewhat of an analogy - gambling in Las Vegas. For a long time, the only place where one could go and gamble was Nevada. Las Vegas was marketed as a gambling Mecca based on it’s exclusivity. When Atlantic City legalized gamblimg, there was some fear that this would effect the exclusivity of the “gambling experience” that Las Vegas had marketed/cultivated for such a long time. However, what actually happened was the reverse. BECAUSE Las Vegas had been so successfully marketed based on its exclusivity, that people were still willing to go there; and still do, in large numbers. Sure, it’s easier for somone living in New York to travel to Atlantic City if all one wants to do is gamble. But if you want the “Las Vegas gambling experiece” (REAL gambling), then people will travel to Las Vegas.
To go back to the band example. Sure, people could go see a tribute band of Metallica, buy the question is - why don’t more people do so? Part of the reason has to to with the exclusivity of seeing the real Metallica. Metallica goes on tour - Great! now I can see the real Metallica at my local coleseum. Sure, a tribute band could do the same (and probably do). But the number of people willing to see a tribute band on tour is probably going to be smaller than seeing Metallica.
I’m surprised that so few people remember that the Mona Lisa DID come to the United States once. It was exhibited in the National Gallery in Washington, and then at the Met, in 1963. As you can imagine, a lot of people went to see it. From this cite:
http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/mona_lisa/mlevel_1/mtimeline.html
“1963: Mona Lisa visits the United States for seven weeks – first at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, and then at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. She is seen by one million six-hundred-thousand visitors.”
Ed
in a strict sense, your professor is right. monitors dont replicate the exact colours on every screen, nor from monitor to print. so the original monitor and even video card to display the image, and to an even finer detail the video settings involved, constitute the original artwork. all others would be imperfect copies, especially since printers are very hard to calibrate to exact colour settings also. thered be a lot involved to try and make exact copies.
I’m surprised that everyone’s in apparent agreement about the skills of art forgers. Actually, from what I’ve read and seen, it really isn’t possible to make an exact copy (assuming you’re referring to painters). What tends to happen is the forgery becomes obvious in about 20 years, because after that time the art forger’s individual aesthetic is apparent. Sort of like watching reruns on TV - when the show was originally broadcast, it carried a current sensibility that only looks dated after some time has passed.
That’s not to say there aren’t some highly skilled forgers out there whose work would be difficult to detect - but they’re extremely rare. They certainly don’t exist in sufficient number to fill a bunch of museums. The ones whose art goes undetected for a long period get away with it by creating “new” works, not by copying well-known pieces.
And there are some artists whose work is more difficult to imitate than others. Warhol’s screen prints probably wouldn’t be all that hard. But to this day, nobody’s sure how Rothko managed to get his color to do what it does. And can you imagine creating a fake Pollock, drip by drip? Artists who were really great painters (and not all famous painters were) simply can’t be copied.
The funny thing is, you can buy little “David” statues - and they’re always off. The proportions aren’t right, the details are blurry. Every museum gift shop I’ve frequented has statuettes of their famous works for sale, and they always look like cheap imitations. I like prints, I have more of them than wall space, but they’re no substitute for the original insofar as a trip to the museum goes. The visual experience is vastly different. Like reading about an orgasm ;).
There is a museum in Pittsburgh, I think it’s the Carnegie, that has a whole gallery of huge casts made from famous architectural elements. Those aren’t my bailiwick at all, I don’t know how difficult it would be to spot a fake. Same with ancient sculpture.
I guess it’s hard to generalize, because I know people who would (and have) gone to considerable expense to see original works of art, and I believe they’d still make that choice if there were an alternative of lovely duplicates available.
As for the top hat, I don’t think it comes down to just intinsic value. I was trying to get at the fact that (some) people “feel” something different when they see an actual object from someone’s life. Now, a museum might display a bunch of artifacts from the 1850-60s. Maybe they have some real and valuable antiques including a desk just like the one Lincoln wrote at, an inkwell just like the one that sat on his desk, and a top hat manufactured by the exact maker of the hat Abe Lincoln wore. Contrary to what you’re proposing, I don’t think aren’t just worthless objects, they’re antiques, and remnants from a former way of life, and interesting to look at. They’re worthy of a museum display.
But, as we agree, similar objects <i>that were actually owned by Lincoln and used by him</i> are more interesting to viewers. [More valuable, too, to collectors, but we’re not talking about people owning them, we’re talking about people viewing them]. If you set up two museums side by side, one which had replicas of things Lincoln used, and the other with Lincoln’s actual possessions, you could get an interesting history lesson from either one, and leave knowing more about Lincoln and his time. Doesn’t matter which you go to. I’m betting that many people would choose the museum with the actual artifacts–even if it cost more. Because they get a bigger thrill from seeing the things he really touched.
I’ve had this argument with people before. I would rather have a cheaper duplicate if it was accurate because I only like art for it’s beauty. If I had the money and could afford the original I might think about collecting it because it was done by the hand of the original artist. I probably wouldn’t do it exclusively because of a nagging need to be cost effective with my money.
Years ago, I read about a Ferrari that was sold for around two million dollars. The only problem was that it was a fake, made up from a wrecked lesser Ferrari. The thing is, everyone who examined the car noted the high quality of the car, which was higher than Ferraris standards. Yet, the owner got rid of it as soon as he could, and if I remember correctly it sold at auction for around one hundred twenty five thousand dollars, which gives new meaning to depreciation. The man who made the fake eventually spent some time in prison, and the car is probably more famous than an original would be, but it is still worth far less than an original Ferrari of that model would be even though it is in some ways better built. I’m sure the owner enjoys the car just as much as an original, but he probably won’t impress many Ferrari owners with his fake.
Salvador Dali, interestingly enough, thought that his art looked better in reproduction. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. On second thought, Magritte might have something to say about the pipe.