Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
ORIGINAL ART WORK OR PRINTS OF ORIGINALS - WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT TO FLOURISH?
I have observed a disturbing trend in sales of art work recently. It is the sale of prints of original art works.
People say prints of art works are cheap and therefore everybody can afford them and it is a good way to sell one's work.
But, don't you think these cheap prints are killing the sales of ORIGINAL ART WORKS which are a bit costly?
I have seen this trend on major on line art galleries where hits up to 100000 per week are common. People are buying only prints of art works there and are completely ignoring original art works!
Yes, prints are affordable art works that suits all purses. They also bring "some" money in these times of recession. But at what cost? At the cost of original Art works! Aren't we missing the woods for the trees?
Friends, do you want to kill your own original art work by selling prints? Do you want to sell prints of your works like news papers everywhere reducing the value of your original art work? What do my artist friends think?
People say prints of art works are cheap and therefore everybody can afford them and it is a good way to sell one's work.
But, don't you think these cheap prints are killing the sales of ORIGINAL ART WORKS which are a bit costly?
I have seen this trend on major on line art galleries where hits up to 100000 per week are common. People are buying only prints of art works there and are completely ignoring original art works!
Yes, prints are affordable art works that suits all purses. They also bring "some" money in these times of recession. But at what cost? At the cost of original Art works! Aren't we missing the woods for the trees?
Friends, do you want to kill your own original art work by selling prints? Do you want to sell prints of your works like news papers everywhere reducing the value of your original art work? What do my artist friends think?
Views: 198
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on
-
Thanks for the reply, Minnie. There are thousands of artists today. And there are millions of art works. And the
prints make trillions of millions work available. The market is flooded & when there is more supply than demand, naturally people will suffer. No wonder most of the artists are complaining. Prints are okay when the artist is a master & is no more in this world because we don't get more of his work & also his works become unaffordable. But contemporary artists who are producing works like products in a factory year after year will definitely suffer if people purchase only prints & neglect original works of art.
In India people prefer originals & not prints. So you don't find many of these prints here. And there is more than enough original art works for people to buy.
If you get art work prints like news papers everywhere, I feel the value will be reduced especially if the artist is new & the theme is new.
Krishna
Minnie W. Shuler said:I'm not sure selling the prints reduces the value of the original work in the long run; but it makes the competition for new artists much harder. Paul de Longpre was a French artist who lived and worked in California. He painted flowers and did quite a few commercial pieces for advertisements. His work was made into limited edition prints. Not only are the prints valuable today but getting an original of his is nearly impossible and they are very valuable. Would they have been more valuable if fewer people had know his work? Norman Rockwell is another example of this. Hoola hoop success doesn't happen for everyone. I think prints are a part of art today whether we imbibe or not. You are, afterall, competing against prints of the masters and of the very best of the past and present. Lack of exposure is more of what kills your art. Just my opinion. Below is one of De Longpre's advertising pieces. The original chromolithograh prints of it have become antiques and are very collectible. The original, probably owned by the company and inaccessible to the public. You yourself have said in another of your posts...what are you doing different to set you apart as a unique artist? Creativity is at a premium. Yes, if there were no prints of any artist sold more original art would be purchased. Would that make it so that the pressure on the artist to do something different would decline letting less creative works and artists flourish? Probably.
-
Permalink Reply by Mickey Nice on
-
Last summer I knew that I was goint to be moving in a year so I thought I would get a head start by downsizing. I got rid of many items that I no longer had any use for. In my basement storage I had about 200 paintings and a couple of thousand drawings and sketches. By the end of summer I decided to take the least interesting of my paintings to Goodwill. I think I took about fifty. My friends were disappointed that I didn't give them away to "friends". Tight.
By April of this year I rented a storage space with an art studio space above. Again I got rid of many things but this time transfered all my remaining art, including 20 years of lesson plans from my teaching job, to my storage space. Though I love to work with oils and other paint mediums I no longer have the space to store and nobody is buying. I decided to work with digital painting and make high quality Giclee prints. Now I can work with very large sizes and not have to worry about storage. And people are interested in buying. I also noticed that museums are showing and legitamizing digital art.
I do miss the sensuality of paint and will no doubt return to oils at some point but for now I would like to see if I can earn some money with relatively less expensive prints. One thing I am not doing is making prints of my original paintings, only digital paintings.
Most of my artist friends who continue to work in traditional media have reduced the size of their work in order to store or sell more easily. Others have turned to paper instead of canvas.
-
-
Thanks for the reply, Mickey. Yes, most of my friends in the US told me they have two rooms full of unsold original paintings. They don't know what to do with them. I felt it is because of the combined effects of recession, flooding the markets with cheap prints, & also because of other forms of art like digital art coming to the fore.
That is why I started this discussion to bring to the notice of the art world about the dangers of original art becoming extinct.
Krishna
Mickey Nice said:Last summer I knew that I was goint to be moving in a year so I thought I would get a head start by downsizing. I got rid of many items that I no longer had any use for. In my basement storage I had about 200 paintings and a couple of thousand drawings and sketches. By the end of summer I decided to take the least interesting of my paintings to Goodwill. I think I took about fifty. My friends were disappointed that I didn't give them away to "friends". Tight.
By April of this year I rented a storage space with an art studio space above. Again I got rid of many things but this time transfered all my remaining art, including 20 years of lesson plans from my teaching job, to my storage space. Though I love to work with oils and other paint mediums I no longer have the space to store and nobody is buying. I decided to work with digital painting and make high quality Giclee prints. Now I can work with very large sizes and not have to worry about storage. And people are interested in buying. I also noticed that museums are showing and legitamizing digital art.
I do miss the sensuality of paint and will no doubt return to oils at some point but for now I would like to see if I can earn some money with relatively less expensive prints. One thing I am not doing is making prints of my original paintings, only digital paintings.
Most of my artist friends who continue to work in traditional media have reduced the size of their work in order to store or sell more easily. Others have turned to paper instead of canvas.
-
-
These are the replies by artists on other networks to my discussion.
Reply by margo buccini 14 hours ago
Like most artists, i have a passion for original art work, where you can feel the soul of the
artist through his/her brushstrokes. Actually, until an artist is securely established, and
there is a demand for prints, original art would be the best way to get well known.
What is disturbing is seeing prints of your art work sold over the internet, without your
knowledge or consent. The artist today is in a very vulnerable place, where intellectual
property cannot be protected. Thank you for posting this and being the voice of the artist.
Reply by Davina Nicholas 12 hours ago
Hi Dr Krishna
Yes I have come across that and thought it may be good to promote the artist in a way, by being able to buy the print and perhaps those who value the work would want to purchase the original.
It can be considered for this reason and also to be able to reach wide variety of public. What I would want to be assured off, is that they must obtain artist permission for this to take place.
Regards
Davina
Margaret Ann Matich-Kaney Permalink Reply by Margaret Ann Matich-Kaney 8 hours ago
I believe the sale of mass prints is a destructive marketing mechanism to the Fine Art Market. Each of my works is original and I never duplicate a work. When I work on a series, each is very distinctly original and quite unique from each of the other series pieces even though they share a common thread.
Fine original artwork speaks to one's heart and soul. Original works and Masterworks have an indefinable quality that touches the viewer emotionally at the core of their being.
-
-
Pierre, if the artist is no more in this world , then it is okay if you sell prints of his her work. However, if a living artist does this, he or she will be disturbing his own market!
Most of my friends in the West are complaining they have " two rooms full of unsold original art works". They don't know what to do with them. I feel this is happening because of the combining effect of recession, cheap prints flooding the market & digital art coming to the fore.
If this trend continues original art becomes extinct! I want to bring it to the notice of the art world this alarming situation.
Krishna
Pierre Tavlitzki said:I agree with Minnie.
Here is the reply I just made before to the same discussion in another network :
Do both.
Print is also a major category of art. Most prints from top masters were made especially to meet the characteristics of that technique, not to imitate painting or drawing (Dürer, Rembrandt, Hokusai, Sharaku, Mucha, Renoir, Lautrec, Picasso). Print variants is an exciting art study even when original paintings are also existing (Munch).
Vollard as print editor is one of the greatest people in art history.
Only poorly made prints are cheap. Do not buy cheap prints.
A collector of your good prints may later wish buying artworks in your other techniques.
But keep in mind that often your costly original artwork is not worth the price you expect from it.
-
-
Reply by elizabethbelhadj 1 day ago
I think that original, always has more benefit, but copies can be just as pleasurable.
Kuesta Permalink Reply by Kuesta 7 hours ago
Dr Krishna, I think that you are right.
-
-
Reply by Heinrich 23 hours ago
This is a very interesting and important point you make and I fully agree to your statement! On the other hand thousands of people buying prints help to make their work known much faster and can sometimes generate a good and somewhat steady income. Also I think the attraction to buy a print lies partly in the fact that all the prices for all prints are so freely available, so you can choose, compare and go shopping. The endless number or prints in many different online shops is multiplying the exposure! According to my experience, originals are not so openly priced. It has always be more of a personal matter, right? Just a though: As a marketing man I would try to develop and publish a clear classification and certification of arts to give customers the security and comparison for an investment in an original and to publish the price with it. And you are right: all of the artists should support the aim to sell originals.
Take the marketing of good french wine for example. Here is the original with the certification, directly from the producer or there is a wine from the region, mixed with others. It is clearly diversified, a pricelist is available. One costs 4,50 US$ the top "originals" range from 50 to 1200 US$ and for some chateau there is sometimes no limit... Anyway these are just thoughts from a "non-artist" marketing man...:-))
Kind regards
Heinrich
-
Permalink Reply by Byron Levene on
-
I dont think prints or original artwork are killing original art sales. Prints of historic works of art make said works accessable to an audience that may not have the luxury to view the work in a gallery or museum. Art needs to be accessable to everyone and not the upper echalons of society who have the luxury to be able to afford priceless artworks in there personal collection.
In the city I live, for years, Minning and Media tycoons have aquired vast collections of works that have either (or both) an important cultural or historic signifigance - Van Gogh's Irises springs to mind. They often keep these works hannging in there private offices or corporate board rooms where they are out of the public's eye. Its in cases like this that having prints avalible means the works can be viewed, studied and loved by a public that would not normaly have access to them.
I think what is more damaging to original art sales is 'Post-Modernity' and the 'modern gallery'. If galleries stopped exhibiting kitchy, tasteless, bad, so-called 'modern' art, and started going back to selling art that has some merit to it then the greater community might not be so alienated from art. Prints may not be as high art as the original work, but they still represent the original work and the creativity and passion that manifested that work. A pile of rubbish scattered on a gallery floor does not represent creativity and passion - it represents a distain for what art stands for. im sorry if this sounds eletist, but if the art purchasing public are spending money on literaly garbage spilt accross a gallery floor then it takes a market share away form those practicing a more traditional art.
when somone asks you: 'But what is art?', there not being rehtorical, they actuly dont know what art is.
-
-
Thanks for the reply, Byron. Yes, we can't afford the works of Old Masters now & prints are the only solution if we want these works. But what about the contemporary work?
Krishna
Byron Levene said:I dont think prints or original artwork are killing original art sales. Prints of historic works of art make said works accessable to an audience that may not have the luxury to view the work in a gallery or museum. Art needs to be accessable to everyone and not the upper echalons of society who have the luxury to be able to afford priceless artworks in there personal collection.
In the city I live, for years, Minning and Media tycoons have aquired vast collections of works that have either (or both) an important cultural or historic signifigance - Van Gogh's Irises springs to mind. They often keep these works hannging in there private offices or corporate board rooms where they are out of the public's eye. Its in cases like this that having prints avalible means the works can be viewed, studied and loved by a public that would not normaly have access to them.
I think what is more damaging to original art sales is 'Post-Modernity' and the 'modern gallery'. If galleries stopped exhibiting kitchy, tasteless, bad, so-called 'modern' art, and started going back to selling art that has some merit to it then the greater community might not be so alienated from art. Prints may not be as high art as the original work, but they still represent the original work and the creativity and passion that manifested that work. A pile of rubbish scattered on a gallery floor does not represent creativity and passion - it represents a distain for what art stands for. im sorry if this sounds eletist, but if the art purchasing public are spending money on literaly garbage spilt accross a gallery floor then it takes a market share away form those practicing a more traditional art.
when somone asks you: 'But what is art?', there not being rehtorical, they actuly dont know what art is.
-
Permalink Reply by Netta Yudkevich on
-
Dear Dr. Krishna:
It's a problematic issue, (almost like with an egg and a chicken - which was first?)
I am not sure if the prints reduce the prize of the original work, or the opposite. When the prints of a work are on demand, the price of the original work is going up. I have a friend in US that only recently began to sell prints, because his original works are not affordable any more to an average middle class buyer.
I am not a very practical person; I don’t care about the prize and the sells of an artwork. I adopted these principles in order to be free in my creative endeavors.
The print will never be an original, a copy will not replace a genuine art, but in the world, where very few people can afford the originals, how else can a person enjoy the artwork, if not by reproduction of it.
Netta.
-
-
Thanks, Netta , for your reply. Yes, it is difficult to come to a conclusion on this issue because different members expressed different opinions. In India people prefer only originals & therefore we don't have any problem selling our originals. Old masters work in prints is okay because people want them for affordable prices but they won't have secondary market. Contemporary artists can sell both but they are losing their share in the original market. At the end of the day it is the artists who have to decide what is best for them. I don't sell prints of my work. That is a firm decision I took even though art dealers ask for the prints of my original work.
Krishna
Netta Yudkevich said:Dear Dr. Krishna:
It's a problematic issue, (almost like with an egg and a chicken - which was first?)
I am not sure if the prints reduce the prize of the original work, or the opposite. When the prints of a work are on demand, the price of the original work is going up. I have a friend in US that only recently began to sell prints, because his original works are not affordable any more to an average middle class buyer.
I am not a very practical person; I don’t care about the prize and the sells of an artwork. I adopted these principles in order to be free in my creative endeavors.
The print will never be an original, a copy will not replace a genuine art, but in the world, where very few people can afford the originals, how else can a person enjoy the artwork, if not by reproduction of it.
Netta.
-
-
You are right, Minnie. Some of my artist friends told me about their difficulties.
Know what? I have more than 2000 artist friends. Most of them share their problems & difficulties with me. I found to my surprise behind several artists there are tragic stories. I feel it is those tragedies that act as machines that polish these gems. Van Goughs know & understand what the life of an artist is.
Krishna
Minnie W. Shuler said:You have expressed the essence of it. I don't think whether I approve or not of selling prints that my opinion or example will turn the force of the great river of art. As you said, that force of creativity just gets inside of you and you have to create. It would be hard for me to tell a truly starving artist, paint but don't make any money from prints or commissions. I have found in talking with others that they depend on the income from prints of a few popular works to pay the necessities and buy more supplies or they have found a niche in the market where they can make a steady income. It's great to be purpose driven in your creativity and get what is in your gut out. Maybe you don't need to eat anyway. And yes, I think imagination works better when you are not depressed. And I have seen the depression too.
Ninon said:To Sell or not to sell…this is the question!
My two cents worth: All items in the "luxury" market are suffering. With so many people losing their homes and income I don't think original art is first on their mind. Even the wine industry and yacht industry are suffering. I don't think luxury items are going to be good for a few more years.
I don’t think our society even tends towards inspiring people to even think in a creative way! You need to be able to appreciate and enjoy creativity and many are too worn out and burned out to care. Artists are often the ones who buy art and our society has squashed out the creativity in many of us. It isn’t that people are not buying art…they are not even feeling creative anymore!
I think we have to consider what keeps one going as an artist. If making prints work or giving lessons...or whatever, I think it is useful. Whatever someone is welling to buy...that is where selling artists tend to go. If we are in it to sell we have to evolve in whatever way the market evolves. Don't forget the decades of religious paintings of a particular style because that is who was paying! This has been the gloom and sorrow of all artists in all fields...catering to the person buying. I often look at museum work and wonder...what else would they have prefered to paint?
Another thought is...how much "original art" is truly worth what many artists expect? Is it "that" good? Think about all the artists through time...how many do we really see hanging in museums and galleries? I would say a VERY small percentage. I see very little art in my journey that makes me gasp in wonder. I often wonder how much is being produced with a desire for income or being created from the divine force flowing through us from the Universe to empower those around us...and ourselves! I really think the essence of the purpose for our art comes through.
How many are painting or creating with such passion and commitment that they are almost on the brink of insanity? (not that we should be...but you get my drift!) I suppose the first question to ask is....does this piece of work inspire and empower ME? I have gone to a few art shows. I find artists (lately…last 10 years) seem to be possessive, closed and bordering on frustrated and angry. I honestly have started avoiding art shows because of the frustration, and often hostility, I feel in people selling. You ask the price of something and they scowl and clinch their teeth at you. You know no matter what you pay them they are not going to be happy about it. Or…they prostitute their art in a way that leaves a sick feeling in your stomach. Truly inspiring…NOT!
Personally....I refuse to consider art as an income. If it somehow happens...fine. But...I think we have to create because that is what helps and inspires all facets of our life! Our creative efforts are a way to inspire the positive energy in the universe and keep the cycle of flow in our entire life. As true artists we need to understand WHY we create and the true purpose of our expression. If we stop creating because we don’t “sell” or we get angry because we are not selling…then maybe that is a clue why it is not working. Most famous artists who hang in museums either painted for their clients (mostly the church) or because they couldn’t help themselves and HAD to create. We create either because we are compelled by a force beyond us…or we have clients who buy it. I create because I want to inspire creativity in others and because I MUST!
I think to try to answer the original question…ultimately; people love to have original work. Mediums change, but there is always a desire for really good art hanging on our walls! If you are in it to sell….do whatever you need to in order to sell. If you are painting because you are compelled…do it! Art, like wine, is never going to cease to exist!
Badge
Birthdays
Birthdays Today
Birthdays Tomorrow
© 2024 Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.
Powered by
