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

[Lucky Strike]



buying art to impress others just seems juvenile

Well, it's a fairly common occurence, to put it mildly. And anything "impressive" will generally have very non-juvenile price-tags.

 

[Lucky Strike]



**** being respected, its a reflection of your soul, not your social standing.

Wrong.

 

[Jr Mouse]



buying art to impress others just seems juvenile

While I think you may be right, this is SF. How many things are promoted as desirable here, with the ultimate goal of impressing others?

 

[Kai]

Buy original art.

There's tons of original art out there across every genre. Some of it will be appealing to you and in your price range.

Discovering it is half the fun.

 

[FidelCashflow]



While I think you may be right, this is SF. How many things are promoted as desirable here, with the ultimate goal of impressing others?

I get that - but personally I've never found anything to be impressive because it was rare or an original. The stuff that I admire is usually something the owner has a genuine enthusiasm for - when they talk about it, the enthusiasm comes across I can't help but respect it, even if it's not something I would personally want.

But fwiw - I know very little about art, just what i find appealing.

 

[stylemeup]



Limited edition \= ink jet reproduction. OP is an asshole who is looking to get some painting he couldn't possibly afford from some ****** 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.

How is limited edition not equal to an inkjet reproduction? A limited edition is an injket reproduction isn't it?

I could be wrong, but from what I have read about limited edition prints, for no reason that is warranted, they do not have a social stigma attached to them (or else it lesser) whereas prints made from the exact same materials, which are not called "limited edition," do. IMO that disparity is ridiculous. Either they should both have the same stigma, or neither should have any stigma.

To clarify, my goal was not to acquire art that I like, not to impress people. However, buying art that I like, if it is going to be ridiculed, is not an appealing thought.

Hence, I made this thread to find out if there was a way to reconcile my likes with my resources and also with the attitudes that others would have upon seeing prints or reproductions in my home. Based on the posts in this thread, the answer seems to be that those things cannot be reconciled because of the stigmas against prints and reproductions. Thanks for all the answers.

 

[Blackhood]



How is limited edition not equal to an inkjet reproduction? A limited edition is an injket reproduction isn't it?
I could be wrong, but from what I have read about limited edition prints, for no reason that is warranted, they do not have a social stigma attached to them (or else it lesser) whereas prints made from the exact same materials, which are not called "limited edition," do.

1. Giclee is much more accurate than inkjet making them more expensive to produce. Most inks are protected against fading for 100 years.

2. A limited Edition is... limited? They will make 99, 245, 399 for the entire world. After that run they are gone for ever. It means that the chances of you walking into a friend's house and him having the same piece is tiny.

3. Ltd/Ed accrues value. I had pieces that I bought for £500 then sold for £1600+ that wouldn't have been possible if there wasn't a limited print run.

if you have friends that will ridicule your artwork, it is not because your artwork is poor, its because you have **** friends. Deal with that issue before you purchase anything else.

 

[dopey]



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

I once had a really good idea based on something this post made me think of, but I can't remember any of it now. I do recall that it was really good, though.

 

[NorCal]



The only respectable option is to buy paint by numbers versions off of ebay and hang them salon style, or to buy two reproductions of the exact same work and hang them tastefully side by side or in the same room, so the sense of humor about the whole thing is obvious.

This. I actually would love to pick up a few Chinese fakes. You can also make a meta point about art and reality, thereby making the "fake" a part of "real" art.

 

[Lucky Strike]

Oh, I'm fascinated by the proper forgeries; I'm writing this sitting under a Modigliani drawing by Elmyr de Hory. I's signed "Elmyr" though, so it's from his late cashing-in-on-notoriety period.

OP: What's your budget for this?

 

[mordecai]

I think I've mentioned before that I once attended a lecture by the head of the Victoria and Albert Museum authenticity department. He said the offices are decorated by the fakes bought by the museum over the past century, which includes a "Rubens" purchased in the 30s with female figures that to 21st century eyes very much resemble Mae West. He said a constant theme of forgeries is that they usually bear some contemporary styling, and that again and again arts institutions fall for their own desire to see the past painted as the present.

 

[Lucky Strike]

Yes! The best example I know of is Han van Meegeren. In hindsight, his "Vermeer" etc. paintings all have some clear art deco/Neue Sachlichkeit influences, which would give his buyers in thirties Holland and Germany the feeling of a connection to the Dutch golden age.

Göring was van Meegeren's most famous victim, which made him a post-war folk hero in Holland, and got him a very light sentence, which he cunningly died away from.

I'd really love to own a van Meegeren, except that the van Meegerens have also been forged, some by his son, so one has to be careful.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

Original work by lesser known artists is certainly a way to go, but I enjoy mixing them in with limited run lithographs of much more famous works. I just enjoy some of the more famous Peices enough to want to display them. I know sf will turn their nose up at that, but I don't give a ****.

 

[Lucky Strike]

Well, lithos and digital/inkjet/giclee prints are two different animals.

Lithography is a very old and well-established printing technique (abt. 1800) , whereas giclee is a twenty-odd year old invention. One of the most important differences, that influence a lot of how their authenticity is judged, is that a litho has an "original" stone "tablet" or printing-block, while a giclee print is just a technically advanced inkjet print. A litho tablet will eventually get worn out after typically around 300 prins, but a giclee (or for that matter, a serigraphy) can be reproduced infinitely. A litho table is not necessarily made of stone these days, but good quality art lithographs will generally still use stone tablets.

Only time in the secondary art market will show how giclee prints will be valued - it's still much too early to say that they're good investments.

 

[mordecai]



The only respectable option is to buy paint by numbers versions off of ebay and hang them salon style, or to buy two reproductions of the exact same work and hang them tastefully side by side or in the same room, so the sense of humor about the whole thing is obvious.

Detail: