DB3

Are Posters Ruining Art?.....and then some.

Art can be mechanically reproduced for the purpose of accessibility but not for originality.  It is impossible and impractical to have an artist, more specifically painters produce thousands of copies of one painting without the aid of mechanical reproduction. Having said this, one cannot have and “original” piece of art if anyone off the street can walk into a store and buy the same thing.  The best example of this is posters of original paintings.

When something is reproduced for so many times it is not art, but merely a replica or representation of art. It is not “original.” Therefore, mass production of an artwork is no longer original. For example, is someone has a poster of the Mona Lisa, they do not have an original piece of art. They have a representation of the original artwork, in a different form. Mechanical reproduction of art is important, not for the sake of originality, but for the sake of availability to people who appreciate the original work, since it is impossible for everyone to own the same original artwork. 

Mona Lisa poster vs. Mona Lisa bastardization. Which is more "original"?

Photography is an art. In my opinion, art is all encompassing. Art can be expressed in many forms: photography, painting, visual arts, music, dancing, and virtually everything that requires creativity and expression in a non conventional way. All these forms contribute to what I think art is. Photography art contributes to the growing and thriving world of the arts. No two people are the same. In the same way, the (original) art of two people will never be the same.

Henry Peach Robinson created “Fading Away” in 1858 to prove a point and perhaps change the way people viewed photography. He wanted to use original and innovative techniques on his photographs to create something original that no one had ever seen before. He did not like the idea that photographers were limited to the basic effects of the camera. He wanted his art to be more eloquent and vibrant than a normal camera at the time could produce. In short, he did not want to be restricted by the machinery he used. Robinson also wanted people to “see” the image he photographed the way he did. His new method of composition helped him achieve this by highlighting what he thinks is beautiful about the picture. Parallels can be drawn between the photographers and the restrictions of their machinery and the criticism of Robinson’s work. Traditional means of photography did not always provide the best results for clarity and were not always able to showcase different elements in the photograph (for example, the sky and the subject of a picture). Robinson’s composition technique allowed for this, and proved that it is possible to portray the sky as clearly as the subject in the photo, inadvertently breaking beyond the restrictions of the machinery at the time. Similarly, Robinson felt that the criticism he received to avoid altering a photograph limited his creativity and originality, and this new method was his way of protesting against traditional methods of art photography. 

Digitization will allow a quicker and cost effective means of obtaining replicas or representation of art. More demand means there is a need for faster and cheaper means of reproducing art. We should not deprive people of art for the sake of originality. Although, the person who possess such replicas should be aware that what they have is not original art. It is a representation of the work in a different form. However, the more accessible and mass produced these become, the less original one can call their copy “art”.

 Marilyn: "Is pop art still original if anyone can own it?"

Works Cited
http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/robinson.htm

Photo Credits
http://en.popart.name/
www.artchive.com
galleryar.blogspot.com
http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/robinson.htm