Blog

I recall a time when I found myself speaking with the owner of a venue about art.  Specifically original paintings vs prints/giclee.  The owner immediately shared the belief , as a statement of fact,  that if I make prints of my orginal work, it devalues the original.   I felt uncomfortable with this comment for a whole host of reasons, not least of which, I was showing giclee.   As we spoke, the owner back tracked a little bit, but not much and then went on to say it was a fine line.  It felt like the conversation was more about the owner's need to be top dog, than it was about truth.   

Why is it that I always think of the thing I should have said, two hours after the fact?  I tend to be polite, and intially find a way not to take umbridge at unpleasant remarks, reminding myself that the statements made are telling me about the beliefs of the person who shared them, nothing more. That said, two hours later a humorous thought crossed my mind:   "I wonder if anyone has told Renoir, Van Gough or Monet that their work is so devalued by virtue of reproductions, that is now essentially worthless?".    I somehow doubt it. 

I've learned not to believe everything I hear, particularly those old worn out ideas that members of the art establishment would have me believe as a matter of self interest.  I don't like the saying "that's the way we've always done it" when it makes little or no sense.  I believe that originals will retain their value as long as I continue to be productive, producing more and better work, and never lower my prices.(lowering prices does devalue the original work!).    Limited edition prints/giclee can add to the value of original work by virtue of it's popularity.  Again, I look at the Master's and Impressionists.  Their work has hardly devalued as a consequence of reproduction, and while I'm not a master, I work at it daily, and my work does reflect that fact,  both in the price of originals and prints.