ordering/printing digital pics

Coqui said:
physically indecernable eh?

I figured you could actually see the brush strokes in the original and not in the print.
Click to expand...
You do realize its common practice in some museums to not display the orginals in their collection. They commission high grade fakes for display and don't tell anyone. Back in the begining of August, theives stole 3 paintings of Munch from Hotel Continental in Oslo. It was later revealed that the real painting were sitting in the hotel vault and that fakes were on display. Only a very few people knew that before the robbery.

So did the fact they were fake change the experience to the people who unwittingly admired them as originals? Apparently not since no one, not even art theives could tell the difference.
 
Pandora said:
His point is a philosophical one. If there is no discernable physical difference between the replica and the original, is there really any difference. If every brush stroke looked EXACTLY the same between the two, would they be the same (ie have the same value)?
Click to expand...

Thank god you married him, because there isn't another human who can understand his odd ideas. ;)
 
Pandora said:
His point is a philosophical one. If there is no discernable physical difference between the replica and the original, is there really any difference. If every brush stroke looked EXACTLY the same between the two, would they be the same (ie have the same value)?
Click to expand...


Personally I think the original is more valuable. That was that person's blood sweat and tears poured into it. The other is just a photograph. To own the artist's actual work means more to me than just having the feeling behind the photograph itself.
 
theacoustician said:
You do realize its common practice in some museums to not display the orginals in their collection. They commission high grade fakes for display and don't tell anyone. Back in the begining of August, theives stole 3 paintings of Munch from Hotel Continental in Oslo. It was later revealed that the real painting were sitting in the hotel vault and that fakes were on display. Only a very few people knew that before the robbery.

So did the fact they were fake change the experience to the people who unwittingly admired them as originals? Apparently not since no one, not even art theives could tell the difference.
Click to expand...


Yes I do realize that. But in terms of our usage, how many people are willing to spend that much money on a known fake?
 
Coqui said:
Yes I do realize that. But in terms of our usage, how many people are willing to spend that much money on a known fake?
Click to expand...

That would depend on how many of them there are.
 
theacoustician said:
You do realize its common practice in some museums to not display the orginals in their collection. They commission high grade fakes for display and don't tell anyone. Back in the begining of August, theives stole 3 paintings of Munch from Hotel Continental in Oslo. It was later revealed that the real painting were sitting in the hotel vault and that fakes were on display. Only a very few people knew that before the robbery.

So did the fact they were fake change the experience to the people who unwittingly admired them as originals? Apparently not since no one, not even art theives could tell the difference.
Click to expand...
Somewhat offtopic: What no one still probably knows is that the theoretical 'real' paintings are also probably fakes. They run RAMPANT in the art world, but no one wants to admit that either, as then the value of their priceless painting drops to ZERO
 
fly said:
Somewhat offtopic: What no one still probably knows is that the theoretical 'real' paintings are also probably fakes. They run RAMPANT in the art world, but no one wants to admit that either, as then the value of their priceless painting drops to ZERO
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but I value art for the experience, not because its "one of kind".
 
poofood.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back