[Update :: Dan's right, I haven't quite used the word 'print' correctly in this post. See his comment below for a better clarification. Thanks]
I'm wondering what people think about original vs prints when it comes to art?
Yesterday I was in at the Printmaker Gallery on Brunswick st, which has some nice prints. I especially like Jam Fancy's work that is for sale in here ... her work is always cute with a sprinkle of evil.
I also visited the Dianne Tanzer gallery yesterday, on Gertrude St. Ash Keating's exhibition was on. His work was available for sale via limited edition prints (pricey), or free in a take-away newspaper format.
Both experiences got me thinking about the original vs print debate. So I thought I'd jot down a few pros and cons of original and printed works. Feel free to suggest any others in the comments.
- The artist is directly involved in creating the image. You therefore have a closer connection to the artist
- There is more of a story behind each work, as each piece is considered within the artists entire portfolio.
- Obviously an original is more of an investment.
- Gives art more of an entry-level, making it accessible to more people.
- A way for a artists to earn some additional dollars to pay the bills.
- Allows the non-art-investor to buy affordable work from well known artists.
- I'm sure prints would be considered evil by some, cheapening the art world to a money making experience.
Of course, Prints can be further broken down into to groups - Open ended prints vs limited edition prints. Not sure if there's much difference, although with a limited edition print there feels like there is some amount of exclusivity / collectivity.
Personally speaking, I don't have a problem with artists who do prints. All the art that I own is reproduced. But I'm sure there are others that aren't so comfortable.
Does artist involvement have anything to do with it? My Aunty, Sandra Brett, is an artist that does a lot of linocut artwork. She does all the prints herself, so is still involved in the printing creation.
At the other end of the spectrum, I have two Yoshitomo Nara pieces on my wall that are open-ended giclee prints. I'm sure that Yoshitomo himself wasn't there when these were printed, but does that make them any less special?
We live in a much more digital, reproducible society now than we did even 10 years ago. My guess is that most people (Genuine art investors excluded) would be less fussed about whether an artwork was original/printed and more concerned about having access to art that they can afford for themselves.
Your thoughts very welcome, as always.