Which is more respectable: inkjet art prints of famous paintings, or oil painting reproductions... - Page 2

There's really no reason to buy a reproduction. It's tacky in the extreme.

While it's nice to think that oil is superior to ink jet because it was painted by a human being instead of a machine, consider that many oil paint reproductions coming out of China are nothing more than assembly-line paint by numbers. Employee 1 paints the background on every reproduction, the painting it moved along to Emp. 2 who paints the trees, the painting is moved to Emp. 3 who paints the lake, etc. So not only are you buying illegal reproductions for which the original artist receives no copyright, you are also supporting an evil foreign government that abuses its own citizens.

I would dispute this. Have you checked local galleries? I know you're in Canada so your options are limited because you people are always frozen in blocks of ice, but surely there must be something you can find that you like. And look at it this way, you're buying good, original work from a local painter who may someday become famous and you'll have a piece that skyrockets in value. When all your friends come over you can mock them and their pretentiousness at paying far too much for reproductions when you got good original work for less that you enjoy even more because you know the artist personally.

quit shitting all over the guy harvey. this is why the car subforum sux nao

btw, some good contemporary Canadian galleries are Jessica Bradley in Toronto and Monte Clark in Toronto and Vancouver.

Don't you have some posts of heismatt to thumbs up or something?

Come on guy, neither one is respectable. Why do you want to own old, lifeless "art" anyway? because you think it will impress people? Don't be a douchebag...

Don't you have 75 more completely useless posts to add to an Apple product thread? You do realize this thread is about art, yes?

Anyone with any knowledge about art will be very unimpressed by both "inkjet art prints of famous paintings, or oil painting reproductions of famous paintings". I guess that's what you really mean when you ask what's most "respectable".

Well, the closest parallel I can think of is wearing fake luxury clothing with loud logos; it will only impress the people you don't really have a need for impressing, while the people who can tell - and care about - the difference will mock and ridicule you.

Reproductions, giclee "oil-priints", DGA ("Digital Graphic Artwork") and inkjet prints are all worthless in any respect, and no better than the ready-framed posters you can buy at Ikea.

Buy original stuff: original oil paintings, watercolours, drawings, small sculptures, signed and numbered prints, etc.

Good, original art does not have to cost a million, or even a thousand. As with clothes, you have to get some knowledge about the subject and about your own preferences and tastes before you make any big purchase, but that's how any acquisition of anything really worth having works: no real knowledge, no real appreciation.

If everyone had good taste, this forum wouldn't exist. It exists entirely because some people have shitty taste, and the assemblage of enlightened folks with ruthless candor like myself is the means by which they most effectively and quickly learn how shitty their taste actually is. This forum needs these idiots to function and I thank the OP and his shitty taste for making it all possible.

Wrong.

If nothing else they have financial worth. Through a complex series of accidents I have spent the last 5 years as a part time art dealer, and have made enough from Limited Edition Prints ( giclee) to pay for my university tuition.

I am not saying that they make "real art" or that some collector will slobber on my balls to see the collection, but certainly by picking up a few of the first prints released by Bob Dylan, Jack Vettrianno and Alexander Millar I have made more than enough money to live. Not to mention the fact that I have an L S Lowrey (Ltd. Ed.) print that is insured for more than my car.

The point is; nothing is respectable. You buy art because you like it. If that means a photocopy of the Mona Lisa great. If it means a pastel sketch by the crack-head next door? Just as good. Art never garners respect because to anyone who doesn't share your exact taste you are:

1. paying too much for rubbish
2. Don't understand "real" art - hipster attitude
3. Showing off with a lack of taste
4. Picking the wrong kind of art all together

And if they do share your taste? Well than that photocopy will do nicely. Fuck being respected, its a reflection of your soul, not your social standing.

If you own nothing else, I really don't see anything wrong with hanging up a couple giclee prints. It's better then having bare walls everywhere. Just don't spend a lot and limit them to as few pieces as possible. You can always flip them on craigslist once you find some real art you like and can afford to replace them with.

Just view them as a temporary way to add something to your walls, not as anything long term.

Where did this fallacious notion that walls must be used as an incubator for shitty taste come from? What did they do to you to receive such punishment?

Where did the idea that walls should display Art rather than Pictures come from?

Lascaux

Limited edition \= ink jet reproduction. OP is an asshole who is looking to get some painting he couldn't possibly afford from some shitty fly by night print shop around the corner run by unsavory characters. Hes not buying from the original artist, he's buying from Trash at a flea market.

Hence my calling him a fuckwitt in my first reply.

buying art to impress others just seems juvenile
Edited by FidelCashflow - 3/31/12 at 3:13pm