I collect serigraphs specifically because I love the process, and Shag
is not the only artist I collect.
There are almost always changes, some more subtle than others.
Sometimes it is a concession to the printing process.
Shag's paintings have patterns in the background that usually
seem to be approximated or altogether omitted in the serigraph.
I own Shag's "The Extraordinary Evening" and it is like the second picture,
with the most notable changes to the rug (round, not square), the Tiki mug,
and the cropping of the figures just below the knee.
Why?
Well, there are going to be multiple reasons:
The original painting was created in 2002 and can be seen
in the book Shag: The Art of Josh Agle on page 124.
In five years, Shag has probably rethought some of the compositional elements.
Round rug change seems to be a compositional consideration,
as does the zooming in on the figures, leaving less "inactive space."
Also the removal of the building at the top of the Tiki Giant's
head makes it not look like some weird attempt at a headpiece.
I also suspect that the mug in the woman's hand
was too hard to screen print as it appeared in the painting,
hence the more simple (and less natural) hand pose and simpler mug.
I also own Shag's serigraphs of
"The Raft of the Medusa," "The Elegant Thief,"
"L.A. Modern (Night)," "The Sun Also Rises," and "Glorious Lifestyle"
I haven't seen the original painting for "The Sun Also Rises," but all
of the others include changes to the colors and other alterations, some
subtle, some not.
This is just part of the process of creating serigraphs from paintings.
There is always going to be some editing unless the original was strictly
designed with a serigraph's limitations in mind.
Shagmart, and other Shag distributors, seem to more often than not show images
of the original painting with a faked white border, and not the final serigraph when promoting the serigraph. I don't know why they do this,
other than they probably prepare the image for advanced
sale before the serigraph has been finalized.
The other artist I collect, Patrick Nagel, also has variations between the
originals and the serigraphs. It is almost unavoidable.
Serigraphs are still the Rolls Royce of fine art prints, and I much
prefer them to lithographs or glicees, which are often exact renderings
of the originals, but also are not nearly as rich in texture.
Shag's earliest prints are lithos and they look bland, texurally and
in quality, compared to the serigraphs.
Serigraphs also lay down a lot more pigment, and are much less prone
to fading than lithographs.
The final serigraphs are the way Shag wants them. Any variations from
the original paintings are done by Shag and should not negatively impact
your feelings or thoughts about the print.
Best,
Gromit Fan
On 2008-09-08 18:28, sushiman wrote:
Yes , I'd thought of that . Assuming for a moment that the serigraph in question is authentic , I just find it hard to understand why Shag felt it was necessary to make so many changes to the original , and I'm not just talking contrast and color . The changes are numerous :
- Cut building top
- Tiki Monster belly button star removed
- Shape of rugs changed
- Different mugs
- Brighter lights in windows
- Woman's position changed
On 2008-09-08 17:21, Mo-Eye wrote:
One other thing to remember is that what is shown on the websites is not necessarily an image of the actual print. When I ran the Thor art program, there were many times that we were selling the prints before they were actually printed. Since we didn't have a photo of the actual print, we would still use the photo/scan of the original on the website, since there weren't any real noticeable differences that could be seen on the computer screen. So you may want to double check with some one on the site about that.
However, if you can actually find 2 physical prints that are different, then that might be a little shady and may warrant further research.
Aloha!
[ Edited by: Gromit_Fan 2008-09-08 21:32 ]
