Yes, I think it's always better to see an original artwork in the original. However, some artworks are made to be experienced in reproduction, not in the original, as it were. A good example of this would be the original watercolors/collages of Audubon's Birds of America (and he didn't paint the backgrounds). Another would be the paintings Norman Rockwell made for the Saturday Evening Post. I recall one where he actually pinned a real diaper safety pin onto his painting instead of painting it. Another time he glued a side of a cereal box onto his illustration. In both cases he knew that in reproduction the addition of real elements would fit in seamlessly. This is common. Look at New Yorker covers carefully to see how they are reproduced from cut-outs, collaged elements, etc. In those cases where the reproduction IS the final work then my preference does not apply, except for noticing the technical prep work for reproduction as in Audubon's and Rockwell's prep work. When a painting made to be seen in its actuality of surface and size (and sometimes, placement) is redone in reproduction, much is altered both perceptually and physically. The distinctly different objects enable differing ranges of perception often clouded by our efforts to perceive one as if it is the other. This is very common but it's best to recognize how really different they are and how much our perception is abducted. One interesting but important result of this altering form of reproduction, so widespread in the dissemination of artworks (books, teaching, now the www, etc.), is the emphasis given to subject matter and the de-emphasis given to the numerous incidents of form (fracture) which the artist usually relies on for effulgence of expression. Some can say, rightly, I believe, that much modernist art has turned to imitate the reproduced surface more than the natural surface produced by the materials used to make it. Much new art is made to fit its preconceived look in reproduction and seeks to reserve its "visual shock" for direct experience in a gallery, museum, or wherever. Thus for an art audience it attains reproduced familiarity which is then intended to be repudiated by an experience of the actual work. The easiest way to do this is with size. Big, overwhelming size.
It's a very complex issue and deserves deep analysis. What I was centered on in my intial remarks was the nature of a image versus the nature of the thing being imaged. One is present in the artwork, the other is not. That distinction to me is crucial and not bridgeable. Except, of course, by metaphor, the eternal "as if". WC --- On Tue, 10/7/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Misrepresented? > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 12:34 PM > William: Have I misunderstood? That you strongly recommend > seeing "art" > works in galleries, museums, homes/whatever but view the > actual work, not a > representation? If so, wouldn't you be suggesting that > the important > standard to use in considering a work is the work itself, > not a copy. > Wouldn't the original be the "outside unquestioned > model"? > Again, misunderstanding derives from differing definitions. > Perhaps you'd > use some other term for flaws in the lithographing/dry > silk/whatever > reproduction process (than represeting). > Geoff C > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Misrepresented? > >Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:52:33 -0700 (PDT) > > > >A discursive form of writing is contentious because it > does aim to convince > >another of one's values. I want you to think about > art as I do. And if > >your opinions influence my thinking, so much the > better, or worse. > > > >To say a thing is misrepresented is to imply that some > outside > >unquestuioned model for it exists. I would argue that > in the visual arts, > >this never leads to any verification of quality. > Attempts have been made > >and they are always found lacking, despite frequent > admission that the > >faults are the very essence of expressive quality. So, > do aesthetic > >signals. > >WC > > > > > >--- On Tue, 10/7/08, GEOFF CREALOCK > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: GEOFF CREALOCK > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: Misrepresented? > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 8:33 AM > > > Paintings are reproduced in books and posters, > for two > > > examples. We may not > > > like it but it happens. Conceivably, through > errors in > > > execution or judgment > > > or technology a painting might appear in one of > these forms > > > differently than > > > it does in proper lighting etc. and hence be > > > misrepresented. Regarding the > > > level of dialogue on the list: screening of > applicants to > > > the list should be > > > instituted and/or rules for participating on the > list > > > established. > > > Yes, each heartbeat is equivalent as is each > bodily > > > function: respiration, > > > reproduction, perspiration. > > > As each aspect of a theatrical production is > equivalently > > > important: "bit" > > > parts, starring roles, direction. > > > As each aspect of commercial photography is > equivalently > > > important: focus on > > > the product and focus on the background. > > > It seems to me that much of the heat and > occasional ad > > > hominem arguments on > > > the list derive in part from differing a) > assumptions > > > regarding b) sets of > > > values/definitions and, occasionally, c) > different areas of > > > artistic > > > endeavour. More light might be shed if it were > accepted > > > that members have a > > > right to hold, but not to impose on others, their > own > > > values. > > > Geoff C > > > > > > > > > >From: William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Reply-To: [email protected] > > > >To: [email protected] > > > >Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on > Canvas > > > >Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 22:16:03 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > > > >Misrepresented? What does that mean? Is it > possible > > > that there is > > > >something outside the work that determines > the correct > > > representation? > > > >WC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- On Mon, 10/6/08, GEOFF CREALOCK > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: GEOFF CREALOCK > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was > Marks on > > > Canvas > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 10:03 PM > > > > > Probably the sophistication required to > identify > > > a > > > > > misrepresented portion of > > > > > a Pollack would be greater than that > required to > > > identify > > > > > the > > > > > misrepresentation of portion of a > Rembrandt. > > > > > If it's my painting, I may well > feel that > > > each mark is > > > > > of equivalent > > > > > significance. If it's my painting, > someone > > > else may > > > > > disagree. > > > > > If I were a teacher of graphic art, I > would want > > > to avoid > > > > > suggestions that > > > > > any mark was not important. The > viewer's > > > values and > > > > > expectations may differ > > > > > from those of the artist; for example, > that some > > > marks are > > > > > more important. > > > > > Who would be "right"? > > > > > Geoff C > > > > >
