The value of painting? Opinion on signed copies? Value of music? etc... (piracy)

[Nikolas]

Hello! Get ready for a really weird thread! Ok? 

I'm not really fammiliar with a lot of art (painting I mean), and I don't consider myself knowledgable to that area. Still over the past few months I happened to run across a few art galleries in the uk! Some amazing stuff, most of them somewhat cheap (around £500 let's say), and a few which were around £12,000 (double the prices to get $!)

Now, the main difference between the two was that the cheap ones were signed copies (of... 200, or 100, or even 20), while the expensive ones were... originals. I found that rather interesting and... a bit of cheating really.

For me art, by default, has the uniquenes embedded on it. Even if you photograph a painting, the art remains with the painting and not the photograph. If you get the artist to create a number of copies are you not bypassing this very idea?

I imagine that this is done for commercial reasons, purely. A painting worth £10,000 is difficult to get sold, but 20 paintings worth £500 seem quite easier. At least in a utopian world who cares about art, but let's not get into that.

Several of these signed copies, had the same (or very simmilar technique): They got printed on a canvas (inject? Something else? There are printers who do that and I know people who have such printers) and then they added the signature. So... big deal! :p Some of them, went a more hybrid way and painted on top of the printed canvas to, still, create a unique copy, even if very simmilar to the other... 99 (for example). In the past this has also been done (Dali for example), by various methods, which also defined the technique however and once the prototype was destroyed there would be no more copies...

All the above seem to be borrowing 'values' from music I find. A painting by default holds its value exactly because it remains in a building/house/museum and only those people are able to taste the full glory. On the opposite music is being expressed as much as possible and vinyl/tapes/CDs/DVDs are making it possible for everyone to get the absolutely same feeling (to an extend, ok...). Even scores are almost freely distributed (if you bypass the bastards publishers...) and you can redo the art (music piece) yourself.

So, time for questions...

1. How do you feel with the idea of signed copies?
2. If art is borrowing ideas from music, why not have music get ideas from art then?

My replies:

1. I find that it is a bit cheating, a bit back stabbing the essense of art, although I see the point in this!
2. I think that this is been done before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_for_Supermarkets . Jean Michel Jarre created this record to play on a gallery, created a single copy, destroyed the prototypes and sold the one copy (vinyl at that time).

What is most interesting is that JMJ himself, right after selling the album, he went on an AM radio station and played the whole record, starting with the words "pirate me". Now this is quite a unique way of things, since AM stations have awful quality and the copies from that radio station do exist! On torrents! For free! With JMJ blessing! But quality remains awful (I have the album).

My other idea is that music has, by definition, the very same function as art: Concerts!

When you go to a concert you're effectively experiencing something unique! Something that only the people attending the concert will experience. And this experience, no matter the technology cannot be captured. Even a DVD of that concert is nothing compaired to the real thing. So this, by default is providing the uniqueness in music.

But how would one go about creating digital (or analogue) copies which use that uniqueness? Thus giving a different (higher) value to a single piece of music? Bypassing publishers, sponsors, etc, directly to the audience?

____________________

Thank you for reading this long thread, I hope it made a bit of sense, and hope this will be a fruitful discussion!

[MashPotato]

Now, the main difference between the two was that the cheap ones were signed copies (of... 200, or 100, or even 20), while the expensive ones were... originals. I found that rather interesting and... a bit of cheating really.

For me art, by default, has the uniquenes embedded on it. Even if you photograph a painting, the art remains with the painting and not the photograph. If you get the artist to create a number of copies are you not bypassing this very idea?

I personally don't see how this is cheating, as having an original and a print are clearly different things   When you get a print you're getting the end product, while an original has the process and the product (well, not exactly, but I think you know what I mean).  The original still has higher value because, like you mentioned, it's the only one of its kind and copies will never capture all the textures/brushstrokes/etc, as well as the personal touch of the artist.  I don't think having copies dilute the original, because it's not the same product as the original. 

What "art" means would be different to everyone, but in my view there's no backstabbing involved in making copies   To me, art is meant to be shared.  I don't mean that art has to be in the public taste or gain wide audiences for it to be considered art, but rather that if art is meant to broaden people's views, give different experiences--wouldn't you want that to be shared?   If a painting loses value simply because there's a lower-quality print out floating around somewhere, you have to consider whether you're really buying that art because of its artistic value, or simply because you want something that no one else can have.  Buying art for both reasons is fine; buying just for the second reason is kinda lame

The Music for Supermarket example is interesting.  While it strikes me as a neat idea, it also strikes me as a bit elitist if that was applied universally.  If all art must exist only as unique originals, then who would be able to afford it?  Only those with considerable amounts of money.  This is kind of a separate issue, but it leads back to my previous point about art being shared.

[Andail]

It should be added that prints traditionally used to have a different value, since the process of printing was much more complicated, and furthermore, the artist would destroy the printing plates afterwards. Nowadays anyone can print at home, and the only sign of authenticity would be the signature. Even though it says 23/200 or whatever, there's no way of telling how many copies there are out there.
So yeah, I can understand if you feel a bit cheated these days.

[bicilotti]

You felt cheated and rightly so; etching and engravings are sold in many copies, but that's a totally different thing. Got any link to this "catalogue"?

[Makeout Patrol]

Sounds like someone's been reading "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" by Walter Benjamin

[Nikolas]

Guys, guys (and Marina of course).

I wasn't actually cheated into buying anything. I didn't buy anything. Just considering differnt aspects and different values, that's all. It's a more... philosophical discussion.

Right now, I can't reply in great detail, will do so in... 12 hours or a bit less (when I wake up). I also have a few catalogues, from 2 galleries in windsor (where the Queen lives in summer? ), so it's not some random gallery, in the middle of nowhere. And I do have more than 1 artists doing the same thing.

Just for the record they were NOT lythographies, but normal canvases, enhanced afterwards with personal strokes, brushes, etc...

Makeout Patrol: Nope, but I sure will very very shortly!

[Gregjazz]

Really cool stuff to think about! A few months back I was thinking about this same exact topic, what a coincidence!

[Damien]

I guess, when talking about signed posters (that's basically what they are), you are paying for the signature and not the art itself. That just enables more people that have no idea how to express themselves artistically to put something on their walls and appear to understand or enjoy it. I see no point in this other than profit.

As for the music, I believe it will always get multiplied and shared, no matter how many numbers it was originally released in. Just like that JMJ album you mentioned. The quality might not be superb but it is out there.

Concert videos and audio CD's might not be close to the real thing but sometimes they are really worth getting. Take, for an example S&M from Metallica. Most of their concerts are boring and not really worth spending money on but S&M is unique.
Also, with artists and bands like Jeff Buckley, Calexico, Bob Dylan, Tool, Muse, ... live recordings are often spiced up with different interpretations of their songs or tributes to other people's music which is OK since music should be experimented with.

But how would one go about creating digital (or analogue) copies which use that uniqueness? Thus giving a different (higher) value to a single piece of music? Bypassing publishers, sponsors, etc, directly to the audience?

Didn't NIN do something similar with their new album? Selling it directly from their website and offering a free download of a 1/4 of the songs.
Also, Radiohead with "In Rainbows" and I've also read about Muse stopping to release classic ~10 song albums and releasing single tracks instead (which would probably work for them since they generated about 50 B-Sides songs which weren't released with their albums).
On the other hand, they probably have enough cash and fame to be experimenting with that sort of things.

[Nikolas]

Sorry for being so late to reply... Problems...

Either way.

Greg: I'll catch you on AIM at some point (when I get back my computer, that is). I find the whole idea very fascinating, and of course... bright minds think alike (don't they say that, or something to that end? )

Damien: The signed copies I saw, where 'hybrids'. The artist, apart from the signature, had also completed the paintings above the canvas. So each copy WAS unique in fact... Of course, I do think you are right, that it's the signature that couts, along with the certificate which mentions that you are truly the owner of 25/120 Numbered copy of the said work. Other wise it's useless! As is every piece of art actually. Without the certificate, it's quite useless, unless I know wrong... 

What Radiohead and NIN did, was based on their fan base and is a marketing "trick", if you like, or a scheme anyways (which I supported fully, since I got 2 copies of the Radiohead box set, not one). But still it remains... un-artistic since it is relied fully on the fan base and does not deal with the art itself but only the 'exporting' method.

Simmilarly to JMJ. He is... ultra-famous. Does not need anything else but his name and a unique copy to hit a single vinyl at a price of 13,000 euros (I think, it's been a while since I checked on the current price of that copy).

[passer-by]

You can't say "this is a lily drawed by dead artist 1 repainted by artist alive 1 and coloured by artist alive 2. It is not a children's drawing book. For music, you can, though. "This is a piece from dead composer 1, played by alive musician 1 and sang by alive singer 1" and change the alive artists' names at will.

Paintings can't be reproduced for real. By hand, I mean. This is why the original is so expensive. When the painter dies, all that remains is a canvas with a given life span. Music, I don't know. Theoretically, it can be reproduced. If what they say about different musicians giving different "feeling" to some music piece, then it can't be reproduced. But then we'd have to define a price for each guitarist, pianist, drummist, saxophonist etc etc, or for combination of player with singer and different singers etc.

Could drive art amateurs mad, if you ask me.

A piece of music is really unique when presented on stage. At a concert, at the theater, in an opera.  This experience is always more expensive than vinyl or CD, which brings some kind of balance.

As for copies, if people want to dedicate a lifetime's work to only one pair of ears or eyes for a large amount of money and the rest of the world knows this work by reputation only...then what can I say.