Post #203430 by Tipsy McStagger on Fri, Dec 16, 2005 1:21 PM

On 2005-12-16 05:03, foamy wrote:

A print (silkscreen/serigraph) is not a "poster." Sorry you feel that way. It's art in it's own right.

the only "art" was when the artist put time, technique, and talent into a particular piece...when this was completed, so was the art. Art, after all is a process, not a stationary thing. Any prints or copies thereafter are only representations of said art, but technically not actual art themselves..if you want to delude yourself into believing that just cause an artist puts his signature on a print that it somehow magically qualifies it as art, that's your right to do so...It may give the print a level of collectable value being signed by the actual artists hand, but that's pretty much where it ends. Regardless of what type of paper or printing process one uses, a poster is still just a poster, but in cases such as these, a more expensive poster...now suppose the artist prints them up himself directly...does this qualifiy it as art???....nah...the same principle above still applies. The art has already "happened" with the completion of the original work.