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

[stylemeup]

This thread is asking the question: Which is more respectable: inkjet art prints of famous paintings, or oil painting reproductions of famous paintings?

I realize that both options are very bad compared to having the original painting. However, since originals of famous paintings cost upwards of a million dollar, the two lesser options will have to do.

I also realize that a third option is to buy only original paintings that are not famous, but then the quality/content would be inferior to that in the famous paintings, so that's not a good option either IMO.

Going back to famous paintings, I like the idea that art prints are exact copies of the original, but I dislike that they are are produced by inkjet printers instead of with oil paint.

On the other hand, I like the idea that commissioned reproductions are made with oil paint, but I dislike how they are not exact copies of the original.

Since both options have good and bad points to them, what should be the factor that determines which option is better?

Out of legions of sellers on the Internet for both options, how does one determine which sellers are reputable?

 

[Blackhood]

I think you might be a fuckwitt, but on the off chance you're serious:

Pick the one that looks nicest to you! If you don't like the fact that prints look like prints, then buy oils. If you hate the fact that the "oil" you have on the wall is clearly a fake and thus looks stupidly pretentious then buy a print.

You can't be stupid enough to think that with "art" - that thing that is utterly subjective - has a better or worse scale. More valuable? yes. Rare? Yup. Respectable. no.

Buy originals.
Buy reproductions.
Buy something so that people respect you? no.

 

[stylemeup]



You can't be stupid enough to think that with "art" - that thing that is utterly subjective - has a better or worse scale. More valuable? yes. Rare? Yup. Respectable. no.

I do not know much about paintings, but in the movies/tv shows I've seen throughout my life, the characters with reproductions of famous paintings are always mocked. I presumed that that attitude is also present in real-life, but maybe it's not.

Aren't reproductions of paintings akin to wearing logos on clothing, which is frowned upon as being tacky? Maybe reproduced paintings aren't perceived that way. I'm just asking to be sure.

My inclination is to prefer oil over ink, but if oil is going to result in mockery or other unpleasant feelings when others see it, due to it being an imitation, that might make non-imitations made with ink the better choice.

 

[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.

 

[exzebache]

You might have better luck looking at professional prints offered by contemporary artists. There are a lot of decent artists working today (who are still offering their work at reasonable prices).

It's up to you to decide what is tasteful and what isn't. If you don't take yourself too seriously, I'd say you could probably get away with a repro (regardless of quality). If you're concerned about maintaining status quo, owning a master oil repro will likely make you look unoriginal and cheaply conservative. Don't buy something just because it's now considered good by a culture that hated it a century ago; find what you like.


Or, if you can find a master forger, go for it.

Check out F for Fake. It goes into this in detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake

 

[stylemeup]

Thanks for the insights.

Are 1:1 inkjet prints of the original considered to be "more respectable" than reproduced oil paintings?

I had that notion before I made this thread, that reproductions are probably considered to be "cheap Fakes."

The prevalence of that attitude is a shame IMO, because that means that no great work of art in painting form can be enjoyed by anyone who does not have access to the original. Wouldn't every work of art be much better and more useful to the world if it could be enjoyed by everyone who likes it?

How would one go about finding a master forger? I would prefer to use someone of that profession to make any oil painting reproductions I might commission, rather than picking a website at random from the legions of them that employ cheap Chinese labor to make their paintings. Are master forgers relatively cheap to employ? If not, I wouldn't be able to use them anyway.

If a master forger is not truly a viable option, it would be nice if there was a way to arrange the web-based reproduction businesses in a hierarchy of quality. Is there any way to do that? Is there a good Art forum I can go to that can provide expert answers about that?

 

[akatsuki]

http://www.troubetzkoypaintings.com/

They did the repros for the Thomas Crown Affair.

I guess in level of respectability:
1. Random artist you like
2. Repro
3. Print

The art world is really insular and self-reinforcing with a ton of hype and self-referential crap, so I wouldn't probably bother with most galleries unless you know what you are doing.

 

[mordecai]



The art world is really insular and self-reinforcing with a ton of hype and self-referential crap, so I wouldn't probably bother with most galleries unless you know what you are doing.

Oh yes, it is so hard to walk into a gallery and ask for a price list. They despise making sales too, probably don't even want your money.

 

[ConcernedParent]



I also realize that a third option is to buy only original paintings that are not famous

I couldn't envision doing anything but this.

 

[akatsuki]



Oh yes, it is so hard to walk into a gallery and ask for a price list. They despise making sales too, probably don't even want your money.

I assume that is sarcasm. Since I didn't mention pricing I am not sure what your issue is, that I called out most art galleries for peddling crap to an insular group?

 

[mordecai]



I assume that is sarcasm. Since I didn't mention pricing I am not sure what your issue is, that I called out most art galleries for peddling crap to an insular group?

You said that because of art world insularity, he should avoid buying work from galleries unless he "knows what he is doing," implying that somehow the basic retail function of a gallery is insurmountable to anyone outside of the art world. If you go to a gallery and like a piece, they will most likely sell it to you. I've seen it happen.

 

[Rambo]

Quit being a ******* asshole Marbear. The guy came in here and asked an honest question and you're ******** all over him. The rest of you as well.

Threads like this are why SF sucks now.

Style - I don't know **** about art, but I think you should get whichever one makes you smile when you look at it. If its the exact repro, then go with it.

 

[mordecai]

I haven't addressed the OP since my first post, when I presented a way in which I think repros can be good. My response to Atatsuki was ultimately intended to let the OP and others know they can disregard the bizarre suggestion to not buy new art from galleries because of some perceived snobbiness within the art world.

Thank you for your always useful input.

 

[Jr Mouse]



Quit being a ******* asshole Marbear. The guy came in here and asked an honest question and you're ******** all over him. The rest of you as well.

His first post did make me laugh, even if you are right...

 

[mordecai]

I'm not being an asshole you useless ******* idiots.