On 2008-10-19 07:58, teaKEY wrote:
Cause a reproduction of any quality is just as good as the Mona Lisa. :roll:
The above argument takes the original discussion so
far out of context as to be laughable.
Had DaVinci collaborated on prints of his work,
then those would be VERY valuable works of art now,
both in terms of monetary value and in terms of art itself.
Just look to Rembrandt's etchings,
of which there are multiple copies, as a example of this.
Those etchings ARE THE ORIGINALS.
They are posters in the sense that they are a million times beneath an original.
Check out the print collections of any museum.
Try telling those art historians and museum curators
that the prints in their collections are
"million times beneath an original."
Try telling that to Andy Warhol's estate and brokers.
Tell that to Elena Millie at the Library on Congress.
Statements like that would get you laughed out of the gallery or auction house. :lol:
And for clarification, a poster is a specific kind of print:
it is a print with advertising on it.
All posters are prints, but not all prints are posters.
Prints absent of any advertising, like most of Shag's, are not posters.
"J is for Jetsetter" and "Music After Midnight" are examples of Shag posters.
"Glorious Lifestyle" and "The Raft of the Medusa"
are examples of Shag prints that are not posters.
You are using the term "poster" for its connotative properties but
not its denotative definition; Most serious art folks do
make a distinction between the two and use the term "poster"
in a denotational fashion.
I do understand what you are saying in terms of cases where there is an original,
like in the case of most of Shag's work, and then there is the serigraph
reproduction. Those are "just" prints, but they are, art wise,
an authentic piece of fine art, and worthy of their place within his oeuvre.
Limited edition fine art prints, made in collaboration with the artist,
signed by the artist, are also the mode of art acquisition
that the average income person can afford, enjoy, and collect.
It also opens up Shag's art to a wider audience, increases awareness
of his work to the larger art world, and further establishes his place
in post modern art history, and the lowbrow movement specifically.
None of the above excludes Shag's prints from being considered real, fine art.
Look at Dali, Picasso, and Liechtenstein: all have prints
that are collected and coveted by museums and galleries.
I love how people will always bring up all the mindless steps in the process of a silkscreen. Maybe there is a little work involved but there is work involved in the shoveling of dirt I did yesterday. But that's nothing to frame in a gallery, the dirt that is. The time part of silk screening is free and effortless.
Silk-screening is an art creation process.
The effort it takes is not what makes it art.
The quality of the reproduction and the skills involved
of the specific silk-screener are.
kingstiedye's statment: except i did not dis shag's work, only jeff wasserman's.
Again, this is a profoundly ignorant comment.
Wasserman is one of the most respected print makers in the United States.
It is tantamount to saying, "Babe Ruth was a crappy baseball player."
You can post it, but expect anyone who knows anything about baseball
to call the comment "ignorant."
Jeff Wasserman has screened for some pretty significant artists,
and those artists often consider their prints the final, multiples, original,
with the iterations before that just part of the process in getting there.
That is why Jeff Wasserman is considered the premier silk-screener,
and why not all silk-screened images are created equal
and often have varying levels of merit in terms of craftsmanship.
Shag and Douglas Nason specifically sought out Wasserman
when they wanted to increase the quality of the prints they were releasing.
Frankly, some of Wasserman's prints are holding up better over time
than than the originals they are reproducing.
(I get a little worried, personally,
about Shag's use of vinyl paint as a media, but maybe it is
archival grade vinyl. I don't know. I'd also like to see him using
canvas and not board as a more durable, enduring substrate.
There are a lot of artists from the 1970s that we no longer have
good originals for, as they often used media like house paint.)
Something to consider:
Shag also creates his images on his Mac and then reproduces them
on board or whatever substrate he is using at that time.
One could argue THE ORIGINAL is on his Mac's hard drive
and everything else is a second or third generation copy of that.
I know more than few modern art historians that would argue that point.
Some artists have hired others to do the physical labor of creating their
work. It is the concept that is theirs. The actual physical creation
of the art can be done by others and does not mean that it
is not the artist's original art. Look at Rodin as an example of this.
Back to Shag than. I have a $100 print and it's cool for what it is. (Actually the frame is more artistic than the print itself. Cost three times more too.) But I will probably never get another one. Too many TC artist making good stuff to what is cheap as far as art prices go. And the artist here on Tiki Central are the top artist in their field.
If the TC artists are what you love, that is great.
You're at the right site, BUT...
...this is the wrong thread to be posting that comment in isn't it?
Let me clear about this:
The instigator of this argument about the merits
of prints vs originals, came in this topic and posted,
"i think tcers should be buying original art from our many talented tc artists."
I think everyone should buy whatever art they want.
I think tc folks should be able to have a thread where
they share their affection for collecting a specific artist's work,
and not have someone come in, crap in the thread,
call the art they are collecting and framing "worthless,"
and post an edict that he thinks we all need to abide by, which is
contrary to the posted topic and intent of the thread itself.
I thought Tiki Central folks were much more
"live and let live" and waaaay cooler than that.
Why not create a "Show us your TC Artist Originals Collection" thread?
Why not start that topic for those who want to express their admiration for
that work in there rather than pollute this thread?
I am sure there would be lots of folks posting positive comments
and fantastic art images in there. And, frankly, I, too,
would love to see a thread of all the great tiki art by TC artists.
However, I wouldn't go in that thread and start posting,
"everyone needs to be buying Shag serigraphs"
and start dissing the artistic merits of the the TC artists.
I would be more courteous than that.
(Heck, I would also love to see a "Derek" thread now, having seen his art,
which is also seems decidedly pretty cool and fun!)
:drink: peace out,
Gromit Fan
[ Edited by: Gromit_Fan 2008-10-20 07:42 ]
