There is also the historical significance of an original that makes it more special, more valuable, more intriguing. An original is a link to the past, a history lesson, a one of a kind. Even though it is reproduced, it will never be the same as the original. The original was touched and worked on by the hands of the artist in question and there is (almost) always just that one. In a way, it's a connection to the artist, to the past, to a significant moment in history. That is something a reproduction can never replicate. That's how I see it. Great video by the way, it's an interesting subject!
You speak of romance, not historical significance. Special, valuable and intriguing are subjective. Touched by the hands or THE artist or AN artist (or forger), provenance trumps the art itself as made explicit in this video. I remember seeing a famous NYC collector mention that MOMA supplied him with a reproduction of a painting he lent for an exhibition and he was struck by the fact that he could not tell the difference from the original.
You are talking about aethereal things, and those don't really exist. The original is linked as much as the reproduction... It is connected...How are those things working, those connections?
I was going to say the same. With the original you can see the mistakes, strokes and every movement done by the artist. It is the closet link we have to many humans, much like cave paintings, we know someone else worked on it and was there when it was made.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 Because the painting was handled and used by the artist. It is a direct link to the creator whereas a reproduction was never handled by them
This is a fascinating perspective. When you asked why people don't display reproductions of great art in their homes, my immediate answer was, "But I do!" I own (and treasure) a supposedly perfect resin replica of a small bronze statuette from ancient Lakonia. I bought it from the gift shop of the museum that displays the original, not just as a memento of the visit (which was itself very memorable for personal reasons) but because that statue itself has personal meaning for me. It's a little bronze lion that was made more or less in Sparta...and it's really stinking cute, with big eyes and a funny face that looks like a baffled housecat. I love the idea that some ancient Spartan metalsmith just really liked cute kitties and cast his lion to look like one. The resin replica gives me a sense of connection to an ancient artist whose real name and story I will never know -- and I would never even think about touching the original because I would be afraid of damaging something that I regard as a treasure of human heritage. A few years ago, my 9-year-old niece came to visit me and, while playing with a set of Avengers action figures on my bookcase, seated Thor on the back of the lion and left him there because "he needs a steed". I thought this was hilarious and Plastic Thor is now, in my view, a part of the statue's value because of the connection to someone I love. In many ways, the replica has taken on value (at least to me) that the original doesn't possess. Humans are funny like that.
Texture. That’s what seeing original art has over a print. It isn’t just colour and image form. Example - the starry night has a texture that is not seen in a photographic reproduction. The art market is just a rich persons Ponzi scheme.
But is it still important maybe 10 years later when someone figure out away to simulate texture digitally? 3d printing already exists and one day, they will find a way to make exact replicas of paints.
For me the original has the textures, the build up of paint that you could physically see and feel if you glide your hand across the canvas. Seeing that is the best part of a painting for me
Came her to say this, happy to see it’s the number one comment. I’ll add that it’s troubling how often value is limited to simply a dollar sum and how many people with influence hold this posterior.
Though photography was talked about a lot in the second half, remember the perfect physical reproductions talked about at the beginning. Just as much effort and expertise can go into a perfect copy, and it can have the same textures as the original.
@@eoincampbell1584 I was prepared to assume he meant this, but when he lists the things we get from originals he doesn't mention textures. His subsequent focys on photography making originals redindant implies he hasn't taken it into account.
great video as always, i think people subconsciously have a hard time giving attention to massproduced reproduction because they are exactly that, massproduced. It almost feels like disrespect to the artist because a painting of theirs which embodies so much soul and emotion has been turned into a soulless cashgrab. But after this video my perspective has most def’ changed, if it wasnt for reproduction all of these amazing links to history would be enclosed to the few elites in our world & im thankful thats not the case nomore.
I think this is a big part of why people are often disappointed by the Mona Lisa, myself included. We've all seen pictures of it hundreds of times, but I think we subconsciously expect to have some sort of glorious epiphany upon seeing the original. That's the kind of reputation it has
I don't think the fact that we've already seen pictures of it really matters, there are plenty of paintings I've seen pictures of that I know would still break my brain if I saw them in person.
Its like ancient coin collecting. People want actual real coins because they feel and know they are holding actual history in their hands. they can sit and wonder who once held that coin in their hand. Was it a Noble? A Roman solder? A street merchant? Perhaps even a Roman Emperor himself? If the collector knew the coin was a fake, then the coin instantly loses all that magic and wonder. No matter how close to the real thing the fake coin looks, the collector knows it is a fake piece and he simply throws it into his junk drawer or gifts it to the family kids letting them do with it whatever they please. I imagine it is the same with paintings. A real painting is deemed priceless by the fact that it came from the original artist's working hands. And then it was passed down by potentially famous collectors over the centuries. A fake painting could had just come off the printing machines of some factory just a decade ago and has no magic to it as to it being from the original artist's hands and it being owned by such persons over the centuries. Things that have actual history gives it its worth. that is my two cents.
Very interesting. I assume it is the history of the object, it’s provenance, that makes it compelling. Knowing that Picasso touched the painting. And thousands have looked at the same object which imbues it with “magic” that people want to feel. A reproduction does not carry same weight and gravitas.
As an artist I have to add that no matter ones skill at copying you can't paint the same painting twice. Though they may look alike they are never the same.
Reproductions aren't that accurate sometimes, in terms of size for example. When I see an original painting/work, I do not only take a look again to composition, colors, etc Looking at the stroke details, takes me back in time and somehow humanizes the painting. I can see their energy, struggle, their human effort. Also it puts me in perspective from the painter. The colors, brush strokes, size, etc makes me feel for a second part of that painting process.
I value originals over reproductions simply because the artist physically interacted with the canvas, paint, etc to create an image. When seeing a painting in a museum it makes me appreciate each paint stroke and little detail. Seeing a picasso in real life would probably make me appreciate it a bit more than a print (which my parents have) or image online. For me I can't get the same through a print than a real painting in terms of experience. I can have a print I love and always look to, but a painting has more of a connection to me. Hell, I have prints of my digital art I've made that I love and can remember every stroke and how the image was created, but something about it lacks this real life connection to it
the way we see is when light bounces off something and hits our eyes. light bounced off the same thing into my eyes as it did for leonardo da vinci and countless kings
The part about original artwork closing the gap between you and the moment, and being like history happening before your eyes... I think that's really it, for me. If I'm looking at an original artwork, I'm looking at the thing the artist touched, the thing that they acted upon, resulting in the creation of a finished work. It's a lot like how I feel about one of my other great loves -- going to concerts. I'm hearing the band play their music directly into my ears. There is no separation. So if I'm looking at the original Mona Lisa, or the Starry Night (both of which I have seen) it's like, from Da Vinci's or Vincent's brush, in their places and times, right into my eyes. The nearest I can figure is that it's akin to reliquery/idolatry, in my case 😅
There is no way a reproduction, even the best reproduction, has the same impact as seeing the thing in person. I remember going to the New York Museum of Modern Art for the first time in my life in my late twenties and seeing the works that I had grown up savoring in photographs. The immensity of a Jackson Pollock, literally filling up an entire wall, with the palpable brush strokes, it was awe-inspiring. It was like looking at the raw chaos of matter at the most primal level. The value of a painting isn't in its monetary value and the religious awe of standing in front of the original is based on something ineffable, a spiritual connection between the viewer, the work and the hand that made it. It's like seeing the face of God.
I visit a lot of museums concerning medieval and renaissance art, but I also love the works of artists such as Delvaux, Magritte, Dix and Grosz, to name a few. It relaxes me in a way little else does. One of the things I like to do when looking at the works is to let my mind dwell and think of the hands creating this very work in front of me, letting that thought awe me. "Bosch or Brueghel or even Duchamp has touched this, years and years before I even came to be. I am in the presence of greatness." It's a feeling I can't really convey to someone else. I don't care about the monetary value, but I know that having the knowledge that this or that work would be a contemporary fake would greatly falsify that feeling.
@@LoneWolfCODYT Many artists, particularly musicians and actors, sign tens of thousands of items. Many (such as Dylan and he's far from alone in this) use a machine to sign things for them. How is that less fake?
Did Berger ever pose or write about the machine art scenario? The internet is buzzing with a funny notion that “creativity is on the verge of dying.” Did the democratization of art set the stage for a paradigm that undercuts the power of the artist? For the moment art feels more accessible than ever. On the other hand, painting with computers is now in the hands of software engineers. Maybe it speaks to a convergence of societal roles?
Creativity IS on the verge of dying. Less independent thinking leads to less creative demands needing to be filled. Who needs artists when everybody would be happy with a banksy copy?
i am an artist, i don't care about the market value, i think when they go for millions it's money laundering by the mega rich, however what i want from art, making, showing, appreciating, is all possible without the market even existing, if it was done so everyone involved could survive comfortably but this wouldn't add to millions very often
I have a copy of Primavera by Botticelli on my wall. I love it! It’s not as big as the original, its in my dining room and I don’t care if it’s not the original, but still pretty big. I payed $250 for it. It’s on the wall right in front of me every night when I eat dinner and it makes the food taste better and dinner time more pleasurable. I would say I made my own shrine around my painting, it’s a part of a ritual I and my husband I every night. It’s also in a traditional gilded frame, to honor its origins. I am an artist my self so I truly honor art. I believe you can do so with a copy if you have specific intent.
I'm not sure why this is really a question. It's the same if its the mona lisa or a concert Tshirt....it's about being there, or by their hand or in their studio or apartment. Authenticity is all that's important...its never really been exactly about the painting. Maybe its over my head. I appreciate your channell and insights. Thanks for the effort
Some paintings I’ve been able to appreciate and love even from reproductions because the message they convey is readily available. Even with some Picasso’s or Van Gogh you can tell it’s a woman or a landscape. But there are certain paintings that their true impact, their true meaning, is only apparent for me, in real person. Pollock and Rothko come to mind. Only by seeing their art at the MOMA was I able to truly see and understand how it made me feel.
I think the space the original painting is in plays a big part in how we see the painting. The environment of an art exhibit vs my bed room are two different spaces entirely. In an exhibit I am meant to ponder the subject matter and look at the space as a whole. Not to mention the scale of the piece. In my bedroom I am invited to lounge and wouldn’t give too much of a second though to the art. Which might now even be the same scale.
Amazing video as always. I understand your point and agree with you too. However, I would still want to at least see the original artwork and it will always be special for me, because, well the Artist touched those paints, and canvas and created that masterpiece. By seeing the original painting, I would be in close proximity to something that the artist physically interacted with. THAT feeling will always be very different from any printed replica - no matter how authentic it looks. I am not an artist, nor am I studying art, but I do enjoy exploring artworks and knowing their story, hence it is important for me to see the original painting!
I disagree. There is more to art than the mere image. The Huntington Library has The Blue Boy and Pink Lady in the same room at opposite ends. The experience of seeing the magnitude of the two paintings in this environment is unique.
And what if there was no way to experience the art except as a reproduction. Not everyone is going to see that painting in that room. Would it be fair if a second hand observer admired the image, but was considered invalid. And the architectural set up of the room is an image to pay homage to the original paintings which emphasize how invalid a second hand experience is so you'll visit that museum. Not an attack, just a thought experiment.
I enjoy (and sometimes get overwhelmed by) the presence of humans before me. When I stand in front of a Van Gogh, one of my favorite artists, I'm not just admiring his technique, or the subject matter, or even the emotion that's been invoked in me, I'm also remembering...he was here. Over a hundred years ago, the man himself touched this canvas, swirled that paint, gazed out the window and put down what he saw. A man, who like so many others, suffered. But when I see his art I can say: You were here. You did this. It's not just Van Gogh. Any piece of original art carries the trace of artist, if only because we stared at the same canvas. You don't get that with mass produced reproductions.
The reason I (and probably other people) don't like replicas is because they're usually printed on a flat surface and thus lacking the texture of the original, be it brush strokes or impasto or imperfections. I love to look at paintings from really close to see all of that - which makes paintings like the Mona Lisa, where accessibility is not given, quite uninteresting to me. Funny enough, because no visitor comes close enough to study the texture, no one could be 100% sure it is the original. To me, the romanticism around highly valuable art is similar to the cult around famous people. The alleged higher importance is simply a higher degree of publicity and nothing inherent in the art or person. Replicas of art raise their level of popularity and leads to increased demand, which results in higher prices.
I like the analogy of celebrity people and celebrity art -- it really leaves it up to the educated (or uniquely sensitized) observer to understand these categories and whom they apply to, at least in that one person's opinion. But, do we really all need to be on the same page on this? I actually don't care if that particular Mona Lisa is fake - I don't connect with her either way.
Only at 4:36 so if this is addressed please excuse my comment, but for me when it comes to what the significance it honestly comes down to the sheer age being the main reason. And the fact such a respected artist being directly connected to the work
Why will I sit and stare at a beautiful sunset and merely glance at a beautiful photograph of same? Copies just don't have the emotional connections of originals in anything. Would you be interested in going to the Smithsonian to view a replica of the Wright Bros plane?
There is scale to consider as a reproducing an original at a much smaller size loses a lot in translation. Also colour is often not the best; I have bought catalogues to exhibitions I've been to and been disappointed at some of the colour. Texture also plays a role, and that is a lot harder to reproduce - the lighting in your house will be very different to that in a gallery and thus the shadow on impasto tracts will not appear correct etc.
This takes me back to reading “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" by Walter Benjamin and his discussion of Aura of the original work of art and how mechanical reproducibility inadvertently increases its value
I really wouldn't mind a replica, but an original has remnants of the soul of the artist in my opinion. A copy to me tends to feel cold and lifeless, knowing a machine produced it, even if the image evokes positive emotions. The original you can just feel it was constructed by human hands, the artwork has a soul.
I've always been fascinated by the ephemeral nature of art. The obsession with art preservation is one aspect of that. The idea of the great artist drawing in the sand on the beach, knowing the tide would wash it all away hours later. Does that make the art more or less valuable? Can a duplicate be as meaningful as an original? Is the soot-stained, cloudy ancient fresco more or less valuable than it was when it was vibrant and fresh?
And aren't museums, ruins and sites just images themselves on a wider scale to enhance the prestige of the originality of the original artwork people already saw. How is the Louvre, Moma or Persepolis any different then a wide scale installation that make you feel glad you shelled out money for going to Paris, New York or Iran, so just another image
What a thought-provoking essay, thanks a lot. For me, aside from content (and yes, the risk of easy reproduction, for sure), and the “awe of having survived” as Borger well said, it is the 3-dimensionality of the canvas (impasto on Van Gogh’s canvas), the framing, its original context (Last Supper, in Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan), sometimes the conversation with other paintings in the viewing room, that make it so worthwhile seeing original works. I don’t feel conditioned ! But the other point is that there are reproductions that make absolute sense like the replica of the prehistoric Lascaux paintings in France (for conversation reasons), placed in their original context ! Thanks again for the great channel. B
One thing for sure, as long as the original exists, it can be copied and compared. If it were to be lost, we'd never know sure if the copies got it right.
I would disagree with "if you saw a perfect recreation in a hallway you'd ignore it." I saw a reproduction of Cafe Terrace at night by Van gough in a friend's house and it _haunted me_. Every time I was there I would take some time to look at that print.
I see art that is superior to the Mona Lisa on Instagram and Tumblr every day. But the Mona Lisa has the history and backstory to make it more interesting
"When you buy something from an artist you're buying more than an object. You're buying hundreds of hours of errors and experimentation. You're buying years of frustration and moments of pure joy. You're not buying just one thing, you are buying a piece of a heart, of a soul, a small piece of someone's life." I believe the originals matter, and although reproductions further preserve an artists legacy, they in a way, devalue the artist.
I felt compelled to reflect on three "copies" of art that have affected me personally. While on a research trip to England, I scheduled an out-of-the-way trip to a tiny village to see Shandy Hall, the home of Rev. Laurence Sterne, the author of "The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy". This book, which I had purchased in paperback form, contains all the ideas of the original manuscript. Although I don't recall seeing a manuscript copy, I was astounded to see cabinet after cabinet of leather bound first editions of these works from the mid 1700s. Now here's the thing: looking at these books on the shelf filled me with wonder not because I read the words within, but rather because in that moment I was in the presence of so many books that must have given their readers similar experiences as I had when I read my paperback copy. And since they had the advantage of being much older than myself, I can only imagine how many readers must have encountered Sterne's ideas through these tools of expression. When I saw Duchamp's "Fountain" at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, I had already seen dozens of pictures of it. Seeing the work in 3 dimensions gave me no extra appreciation of the piece. But seeing "it", the thing, the object, the urinal turned into a statement, now exhibited as an example of high art worthy of public attention, recontextualized it in my mind. I could no longer think of the piece as a mere concept, but instead as a locus of the attention of critics. I imagine their eyes locking onto the photons reflected from it's glazed ceramic surface slamming at light speed into the retinas of the taste makers of the day, exciting electrical impulses that wound their way around their brains eventually illiciting emotional reactions of laughter, anger, awe, grief, etc. One more meditation: at Harper's Ferry, West Virginia, there is a bible. This is not unusual. It's an old bible, but then again, not old enough that would make it outstanding among surviving bibles of it's era. The reason it's on display is because this particular bible belonged to John Brown, the slavery abolitionist who attempted an armed uprising against slaveholders. It was that particular bible that inspired Brown's zeal, it was that particular bible that he turned to for guidance. One can imagine any other bible of the same printing would be functionally interchangeable with the one on display, yet the importance of it's preservation and exhibition, just like Sterne's first edition prints, doesn't come from the text, but rather from the object itself. This was *the* copy of an artwork that connects the present time to a crucial moment 160 years ago.
i think its the fact that i am seeing the painting that a great artist has once touched many years ago. it's like a message from the past. it connects me to the artist imo. a perfect copy would be functionally the same, but it would not really be the very first iteration of the artwork that survived to our day. I think this is why it means much to me. maybe it's different for other people. and I am glad that art is being more and more democratized, it means more people can enjoy it
I disagree. 1 - Art was often made to be public: handprints in communal caves, frieses on Greek temples, frescoes in cathedrals, mosaics in Roman bathouses, statues in public squares, etc. 2 - The copy will never be identical to the original. Posters are made with dyes on paper, not oil on a canvas. The tv screen doesn't convey the feeling of looking up at the ceiling of a cathedral. 3 - We already make copies to protect the more valuable original. There's a reproduction of the whole Lascaux cave made solely to protect a prehistoric work of art from the visitor's body heat and breath. 4 - Sometimes democratisation is the point. There was recently a scandal of a tycoon having illustrated prayer books in his home which should have been in the national museum. No one would've cared if he had copies, the offense was that he claimed exclusive right to the "peasants'" treasure. 5 - It's about a labor of love. My family has given and recived hand made art as gifts. Machine made copies would only be acceptable if the originals were lost. Mass producing them would be an insult to the gift-giver. The price of Mona Lisa varies so much because it is priceless.
this is an interesting point ive never thought about. but i think i have my own personal answer. my favorite painter of all time is van gogh. but i dont base this only on his paintings, its who he was as a person. his story, his mind, what he went through. i adore him and i pity him and i love him and i miss him, even though i never knew him. when i see his paintings, what came first into my mind is not an appreciation of it as an art, but as an extension of his mind and daily life. when i see his sketches i see him sketching, when i see his paintings i see him sitting in front of a canvas set up on the streets, meadows, fields. i see him when i see his paintings. to be able to see the original would have moved me so much in this case. he made this! every stroke of paint was made by his hands! what could he be thinking at the time? what did he see? does he stop to consider the angle of this one flower? or the shade of that womans face? i think of him and of how the real painting im seeing right in front of my eyes is so very loved by millions of others, each with entirely different reasons of how i loved it, so far into the future. a perfect copy done by third parties still would not have contained his soul in it. i think things like these matters to a lot of people.
If you've never seen the originals you've never seen his art. A photograph doesn't do it justice. I spent the first twenty years of my lie pouring scorn on the art world for celebrating his efforts at finger painting, until I saw them in the flesh. It is at that moment that art occurs. It's not in the creation, nor the finished product, it is when it comes to life in the mind of the eye.
A copy is like a clone, it draws itself from the original without which, there is no standard to compare against or worth to bother with making a replica of at all.
Thank you, as an Art teacher I'm sure John Berger's series will be of a great interest. On the same theme, did you watch Orson Welles' "F for Fake"? It revolves aroung art forger Elmyr de Hory, exploring and deconstructing the very concepts of authorship and expertise, another way to tackle the notion of authenticity in Art.
…just a casual art expert coming through…it is obvious that the competition is not exhaustingly arbitrarily Mutual. Naturally the meaning can be derived from the experience granted by its own mastery and I am positively convinced that this arrangement is stellar in its execution
I just found this channel, and holy shit you’ve blown me away. It usually takes me a little before I sub to channel but this is the second vid I’ve watched and I already got notifications on. This is some great content, thank you for this.
Great video. I enjoy this topic a lot as it's almost so obvious yet difficult to explain. It's the same conversation being had right now about the value of NFT's and the perception of value.
I think NFTs play on the human psychological desire to "own" something. Even though a buyer thinks they own an NFT artwork, they don't, but they're convinced they do. Which apparently is good enough.
Great questions, I think the answers of what it lost with reproductions has a lot to do with the ideas of personal prestige "I saw the original Mona Lisa" not so much as to getting any insight from it as to "getting associated" with something remarkable, like taking selfies with famous people: association and to get a aura of prestige. Also a fetishist pleasure. So the satisfaction from originals, not just in art, also with historical objects, trips, persons met has a fetishist basis. Not better, not worse, but has little to do with the art enjoyment itself. So fetishism, associations, prestige and elevating oneself... which is very childish in the worst sense :P
also interesting to think about works whose processes involve physical reproduction, such as printmaking or bronze casting, where there was always meant to be more than one final object
I mostly agree with these points, Though for me this "religiosity" originates from the respect and awe for the artist. That is why I would stare at the "real" Starry Night more than a reproduction, even if the "original" one is fake. The knowledge that the real Van Gogh worked on this is what turns it into a religious icon worthy of worship
Reproductions of historic art are incredibly sought after by myself & others here on your channel. It’s true I don’t display religious art from the renaissance in my home but I do seek it out along with its history here on RUclips. The power of historic art does not hold most modern viewers in the same awe as those who viewed in originally in the worshipful atmosphere of cathedrals but we are in awe of not just the art but the culture of those who originally produced and consumed it. The monetary value is just a means of curating and preserving it. We don’t all get to know or feel it’s true meaning and value, this may take years and elude some, even most, of us entirely.
For me, and perhaps others in earlier comments (forgive me if I am repeating) the attraction to the original is that it was touched, breathed upon, created, changed, manipulated, loved hated... by a real human being who was a genius, a flawed, living human being...and when I have my minor struggles with brush, canvas , paint I know that I am not alone. They too ...(. I don't give a tinkers dam about the money. Banksy shredding his art, as an act of art to create new art was perfection.) The breath of that old flawed genius in Florence is in that aged, cracked paint and that is the soul of the piece.
It's an interesting subject. One way to see it is how Walter Benjamin saw It: the originality of an obra depends of Its "soul". All the story behind the obra. Some times even a copy at the beginning starts to have an artistic value because (in words of Heidegger, I think I don't remember well) it's in the artistic constellation and has a original soul (or aura). It's an interesting subject. And, in my things, the market (and the price) is an interesting thing but not a way to see the value of an obra. Jaja.
It's coz it came from the artist's genuine, sheer mind & idealism, that's the importance of authenticity. It came from the artist's definition of a certain imagery. "This is how the artist sees the world." That's why works of artists like Van Gogh hold high value, as oppose to picture copy produce.
I saw a documentary on TV back in 1979 showing that the Mona Lisa is fake. It has "THIS IS A FAKE" written on the canvas in Sharpie but you can only tell with an X-Ray. Though strangely the fake was also painted by Leonardo.
Also, what if time travel was invented and you could go back in time to get freshly made pieces from the great masters? Would they be demed fake due to showing no age? What if we go even further to the point both time travel and intersimensional become available, meaning we could get infinite newly made masterpieces by the hands of the masters, what would happen with the value?
Stand before any human made object from 500yrs ago and one from today and tell me you don't feel any reverence for the older one. It speaks to us as humans, where we have come from and where we will go. All of our differences and yet all of our similarities.
I think to me what makes the originals so special is the human contact that was involved with a world long gone. People generations before me I have seen with us some very few people have touched it, it’s kind of like looking at a metal sculpture and seeing the shiniest part where people would be touching something and the oils of their fingers causing it to shine brighter than the rest of the statue. It’s the human connection
The answer lies in the scam of art valuation - buying art early and holding it for a time before reselling can generate enormous wealth. I have a friend whose parents are moderately wealthy, but they were 'into' art and bought Warhol's, Hockney's, Koons and others early on, for not terribly much $- purchased so many to the point my friend had a stack of these leaning against a wall in a spare room - millions of dollars in art not even displayed - but increasing in value year after year. I think Warhol's screen prints of Campbell's soup cans and Marilyn Monroe were commentaries on the commidifying of art - and of course now they are highly prized (and priced) pieces of art - which is pretty ironic when you consider it.
Great question! I really enjoy your videos - please keep with the challenging questions. I would say the one word - which was mentioned - AUTHENTICITY - people like the encounter with the actual - that's what brings the meaning -- thank you
if the mona lisa was fake or not, it wouldnt change the outcome. still travelled, admired, payed, took a photo, and so on. you wouldnt know, so its pointless. atleast its the closest to the real thing. for example me seeing a copy of the mona lisa in the school hallway doesnt bother me or give me any kind of reaction or satisfaction, is because it just wouldnt be possible for the real one to be there. even if it wasnt the real thing inside the louvre i wouldnt mind going there anyway, its the closest thing… you get what im trying to say?
Vaino ■ That makes sense ! But you _know the Mona Lisa_ in the hallway is not real. When you travel to see the original ... the curators of the museum are presenting a copy ... not telling the public ... that is deliberate deception. It kinda taints the whole experience of traveling w / anticipation ... of thinking you are going to have the experience of seeing the real art-work of a famous printing. If the public knew the truth, before going to the Louvre, the curators would lose money ; attendance ... their bottom-line isn't about sharing the work w / the public ! Their purpose is commercial-value which cheapens the art. In another of his insightful videos, The Canvas, pointed-out that the Mona Lisa was placed in a very obscure place, surrounded by many other paintings. It wasn't until the Mona Lisa was stolen & then recovered, that the public ( by the hundreds of thousands ) lined-up to see it. It now has a distinctive place in the museum [ the only painting in the room ]. We should not be lied to when it comes to Art. The Artist (s) would not appreciate the forgeries / photo-copies, imo.
I am never going to see a Van Gogh in my life so being able to study his work online and thru reproductions is more than fine to me. Yes Van Gogh touched the original and that connection is amazing and makes them historical and cultural treasures, but me personally, I would be thrilled with a good fake.
It must be said that original works are important for research and study. For example , with radiology techniques the scholars can discover older versions of that painting underneath , that were modified by the artist later.
For me its also the material that plays a huge role, old parchment, canvas, handmade paints artist mixed himself. It used to be much more personal and labour intensive. The elevation of paint that cannot be experienced by 2d scan. To think someone poured their skill and soul into that very material with their own hands. A reproduction especially printed one looses that completely.
Personally for me, it depends on what kind of painting it is to make me prefer the original over a replica. Things like texture, provenance, and the artist's original touch can't be easily reproduced. But if those things aren't particularly important to me for that particular painting, I'm more than happy to just hang an image up on my wall just to see the picture. I display Monet and Rockwell pieces taken from calendars up in my room because I care for the image more than anything else. For any paintings I buy in the future, I probably won't care about the provenance so much as I care for the image and the life it brings to my life because in the end, that's what it's supposed to do! I may never have a real van gogh in my home at any point in my life, but I can get a replica of starry night or irises and still get the same feeling I'd get from being with the original because the meaning is still the same. Van Gogh painted his work only once- he put that love and time and energy into that one piece. Because he put the work into that painting, creating that image, any reproductions- in my mind- will carry that same weight. It's like a book. No matter how many times it's been re-printed, or what version of the story I'm reading, Frankenstein, as a work, will always move me because it's forever going to be made of Mary Shelly's love and energy, no matter how it's reproduced. Also, sometimes you can just like an image! Who cares about the provenance if its a nice painting that you like and wanna keep around! Do we care about the provenance of our furniture or our dishes? Then why drop your love for a piece if it suddenly isn't as special as you thought it was? Art should be loved for art's sake, not for how fancy its history is.
I was told by a friend who had worked at the Louvre over 20 years ago that the Mona Lisa painting in the Louvre is a fake. The reason behind this is because a. if it ever got destroyed by a terrorist attack, which are many in France, then that would be it, no more Mona Lisa which is arguable the most famous painting historically, and b. no one would be able to tell the difference (spectators and experts alike would not get anything less from looking at an exact replica) - a replica would be an exact copy, the only difference is the paint used, and that it's not the original.
The artist's physical presence with the tangible item is why we view things "mystically" or assign greater "historical value." We are basically obsessed with fame and knowing any historical figure touched and sat before the work, laboring over it meticulously, means that it's worth something. It's not a benevolent advent, it's a sickness.
Of course it is different. The original is the one the artist touched, felt, was around, inspired by. It is THE ONE. The original is the artist. What if your favourite person in the world was cloned. Would it be different? Yes, because they are not the one. They are not they. They are because of and off of they.
If tomorrow we find out the Monalisa isn't authentic, I wouldn't feel deceived, since I haven't had the chance to look at it longer/closer enough to connect with the humanity of the painting.
When you see the original Starry Night you are seeing the painting done by Van Gogh personally in Saint-Remy-de-Provence, France in 1889. Reproductions and photographs do not have this distinction.
Maybe it just me, but there are some art pieces in person feel so much diffrent in person then online, now thus might be that some piece have so interesting textures when looked closely. Maybe its not the point of the works to be looked so closely but to me it give them a big diffrence
No, a replica will never have the same value as the original. That's because in order to make an original piece of art, you need to imagine an idea, a topic and through the art of creation you made it into a piece of art, imbuding the work with a part of your essence. In a replica Thies Doesn't happen, the person or machine that copies it doesn't come up with an original idea, nor does it imbude the replica with its essence, since it's a copy. It requires technical skill, but in our actual view of art that doesn't mean anything. However, taking inspiration and making your art inspired on someone elses is acceptable, since you have to come up with an original idea and imbude the artwork with yourself. In order to make art truly democratic we do not have to have a print of the Mona Lisa in every house, instead we have to give everyone the means to make their own art based in the Mona Lisa.
The louvre isn’t selling you a 30 second time share of the priceless art. They are selling exclusivity. Humanity is basically a greedy lot. Not everyone can afford to travel to France for a selfie. It’s a “in your face” childish Nah na na nana to all their friends and family.
😂 I can't think of anything more stressful than trying to quietly contemplate Mona Lisa at the Louvre, your comment at least gives a humourous perspective on the whole debacle 🙈
Yeah i agree with most of the comments saying what hold value is the fact the man/woman we hold so high in regard placed their hands on it. Why is a Brush that Monet Used and cant even be used to paint anymore worth more than a normal brush that you can paint with? Because he used it, he himself owned it, artifacts are important. I agree from an art standpoint it shouldnt make a difference from how the art itself makes you feel. If i can own reproductions that have the exact brush strokes and layers that monet used id plaster my house with them. I hafta look into that though because i'd definitely buy a bunch of them lol.
Its like saying family heirlooms and ancient artifacts found on earth arent important because we can make things that look the same. I never knew people had this debate though, i thought it was pretty cut and dry that things that survived through history are important and worth money. A show that was huge at one point was pawn stars, which is literally just buying cool shit from history and determining if its actually from history. I guess its like that argument, would you rather be lied too and feel good or be told the truth and feel bad, was the lie really a lie if it made you feel the same as if it were the truth originally, no lol.
So what would they be keeping the original for? It’s not like they’d be waiting for a specific day to roll around where they sell the original… so why have the original sitting away, locked in a safe, unseen by anyone that doesn’t work in close proximity to it? Would it be kept just to keep the original for hundreds of years in the future?
I like the meta thought of understanding that this video is itself a representation of easily accessed art for all, that we choose to still watch because of the mystery of art.
I believe it has been double blind tested if violinists could tell the difference between stradivarius violins and high quality modern violins. Turns out no one could really tell the difference and often times people preferred the modern one. A similar phenomenon has been found with high end audio gear. Simply being told that what one is listening to is special is enough to have people precieve something different in the sound, when there really isn't a difference. Context changes perception. Guess it's the same with visual art too.
I understand the conceptual side of what you are saying, however I have to piont out one thing. The original cannot be recreated. The artist stood in front of the piece of canvas in front of which you are now standing. They mixed the paint and some lost their minds painting these painting.
Where can I buy perfect reproductions for $20 ? I only seen posters in that price range. It would be cool to have a brush stroke perfect reproduction of Mona Lisa and if it so cheap I could buy several.
I think the biggest thing missing from a reproduction of art is it’s history a reproduction of the Mona Lisa doesn’t have the long history of the painting
There is also the historical significance of an original that makes it more special, more valuable, more intriguing. An original is a link to the past, a history lesson, a one of a kind. Even though it is reproduced, it will never be the same as the original. The original was touched and worked on by the hands of the artist in question and there is (almost) always just that one. In a way, it's a connection to the artist, to the past, to a significant moment in history. That is something a reproduction can never replicate. That's how I see it.
Great video by the way, it's an interesting subject!
This!
I collect antiques as a hobby. Buying a modern repro would be pointless, because they dont have the same history.
You speak of romance, not historical significance. Special, valuable and intriguing are subjective. Touched by the hands or THE artist or AN artist (or forger), provenance trumps the art itself as made explicit in this video. I remember seeing a famous NYC collector mention that MOMA supplied him with a reproduction of a painting he lent for an exhibition and he was struck by the fact that he could not tell the difference from the original.
You are talking about aethereal things, and those don't really exist. The original is linked as much as the reproduction... It is connected...How are those things working, those connections?
I was going to say the same. With the original you can see the mistakes, strokes and every movement done by the artist. It is the closet link we have to many humans, much like cave paintings, we know someone else worked on it and was there when it was made.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 Because the painting was handled and used by the artist. It is a direct link to the creator whereas a reproduction was never handled by them
This is a fascinating perspective. When you asked why people don't display reproductions of great art in their homes, my immediate answer was, "But I do!" I own (and treasure) a supposedly perfect resin replica of a small bronze statuette from ancient Lakonia. I bought it from the gift shop of the museum that displays the original, not just as a memento of the visit (which was itself very memorable for personal reasons) but because that statue itself has personal meaning for me. It's a little bronze lion that was made more or less in Sparta...and it's really stinking cute, with big eyes and a funny face that looks like a baffled housecat. I love the idea that some ancient Spartan metalsmith just really liked cute kitties and cast his lion to look like one. The resin replica gives me a sense of connection to an ancient artist whose real name and story I will never know -- and I would never even think about touching the original because I would be afraid of damaging something that I regard as a treasure of human heritage.
A few years ago, my 9-year-old niece came to visit me and, while playing with a set of Avengers action figures on my bookcase, seated Thor on the back of the lion and left him there because "he needs a steed". I thought this was hilarious and Plastic Thor is now, in my view, a part of the statue's value because of the connection to someone I love. In many ways, the replica has taken on value (at least to me) that the original doesn't possess.
Humans are funny like that.
Nice! Thanks for writing that out.
This is beautiful. Humans really are funny like that.
nice!
Texture. That’s what seeing original art has over a print. It isn’t just colour and image form. Example - the starry night has a texture that is not seen in a photographic reproduction. The art market is just a rich persons Ponzi scheme.
But is it still important maybe 10 years later when someone figure out away to simulate texture digitally? 3d printing already exists and one day, they will find a way to make exact replicas of paints.
I agree but I think place and scale is equally quintessential to a work of arts aura.
Modern 3d printed copies reproduce texture & brush strokes.
Size is a thing too
For me the original has the textures, the build up of paint that you could physically see and feel if you glide your hand across the canvas. Seeing that is the best part of a painting for me
Came her to say this, happy to see it’s the number one comment. I’ll add that it’s troubling how often value is limited to simply a dollar sum and how many people with influence hold this posterior.
Though photography was talked about a lot in the second half, remember the perfect physical reproductions talked about at the beginning. Just as much effort and expertise can go into a perfect copy, and it can have the same textures as the original.
@@eoincampbell1584 I was prepared to assume he meant this, but when he lists the things we get from originals he doesn't mention textures. His subsequent focys on photography making originals redindant implies he hasn't taken it into account.
great video as always, i think people subconsciously have a hard time giving attention to massproduced reproduction because they are exactly that, massproduced. It almost feels like disrespect to the artist because a painting of theirs which embodies so much soul and emotion has been turned into a soulless cashgrab. But after this video my perspective has most def’ changed, if it wasnt for reproduction all of these amazing links to history would be enclosed to the few elites in our world & im thankful thats not the case nomore.
I think this is a big part of why people are often disappointed by the Mona Lisa, myself included. We've all seen pictures of it hundreds of times, but I think we subconsciously expect to have some sort of glorious epiphany upon seeing the original. That's the kind of reputation it has
i went and saw the mona lisa and got chills, no disappointment. you probably didn't know the history of it.
I don't think the fact that we've already seen pictures of it really matters, there are plenty of paintings I've seen pictures of that I know would still break my brain if I saw them in person.
Its like ancient coin collecting. People want actual real coins because they feel and know they are holding actual history in their hands. they can sit and wonder who once held that coin in their hand. Was it a Noble? A Roman solder? A street merchant? Perhaps even a Roman Emperor himself? If the collector knew the coin was a fake, then the coin instantly loses all that magic and wonder. No matter how close to the real thing the fake coin looks, the collector knows it is a fake piece and he simply throws it into his junk drawer or gifts it to the family kids letting them do with it whatever they please.
I imagine it is the same with paintings. A real painting is deemed priceless by the fact that it came from the original artist's working hands. And then it was passed down by potentially famous collectors over the centuries.
A fake painting could had just come off the printing machines of some factory just a decade ago and has no magic to it as to it being from the original artist's hands and it being owned by such persons over the centuries.
Things that have actual history gives it its worth. that is my two cents.
Very interesting. I assume it is the history of the object, it’s provenance, that makes it compelling. Knowing that Picasso touched the painting. And thousands have looked at the same object which imbues it with “magic” that people want to feel. A reproduction does not carry same weight and gravitas.
As an artist I have to add that no matter ones skill at copying you can't paint the same painting twice. Though they may look alike they are never the same.
Reproductions aren't that accurate sometimes, in terms of size for example. When I see an original painting/work, I do not only take a look again to composition, colors, etc Looking at the stroke details, takes me back in time and somehow humanizes the painting. I can see their energy, struggle, their human effort. Also it puts me in perspective from the painter. The colors, brush strokes, size, etc makes me feel for a second part of that painting process.
Poor quality reproductions are just that.
I value originals over reproductions simply because the artist physically interacted with the canvas, paint, etc to create an image. When seeing a painting in a museum it makes me appreciate each paint stroke and little detail. Seeing a picasso in real life would probably make me appreciate it a bit more than a print (which my parents have) or image online. For me I can't get the same through a print than a real painting in terms of experience. I can have a print I love and always look to, but a painting has more of a connection to me. Hell, I have prints of my digital art I've made that I love and can remember every stroke and how the image was created, but something about it lacks this real life connection to it
It’s not always about the subject matter. Sometimes it’s knowing the artist touched that. Made that. It’s like time travel.
You do not and can not 'know' that, you can only accept somebody else's word for it.
the way we see is when light bounces off something and hits our eyes. light bounced off the same thing into my eyes as it did for leonardo da vinci and countless kings
The part about original artwork closing the gap between you and the moment, and being like history happening before your eyes... I think that's really it, for me.
If I'm looking at an original artwork, I'm looking at the thing the artist touched, the thing that they acted upon, resulting in the creation of a finished work.
It's a lot like how I feel about one of my other great loves -- going to concerts. I'm hearing the band play their music directly into my ears. There is no separation.
So if I'm looking at the original Mona Lisa, or the Starry Night (both of which I have seen) it's like, from Da Vinci's or Vincent's brush, in their places and times, right into my eyes.
The nearest I can figure is that it's akin to reliquery/idolatry, in my case 😅
There is no way a reproduction, even the best reproduction, has the same impact as seeing the thing in person. I remember going to the New York Museum of Modern Art for the first time in my life in my late twenties and seeing the works that I had grown up savoring in photographs. The immensity of a Jackson Pollock, literally filling up an entire wall, with the palpable brush strokes, it was awe-inspiring. It was like looking at the raw chaos of matter at the most primal level. The value of a painting isn't in its monetary value and the religious awe of standing in front of the original is based on something ineffable, a spiritual connection between the viewer, the work and the hand that made it. It's like seeing the face of God.
And would later finding out that the painting you saw was a reproduction devalue your experience?
If it was a fake, it would be epic cos that would be so fitting with Mona Lisas cheeky smile.
I visit a lot of museums concerning medieval and renaissance art, but I also love the works of artists such as Delvaux, Magritte, Dix and Grosz, to name a few. It relaxes me in a way little else does. One of the things I like to do when looking at the works is to let my mind dwell and think of the hands creating this very work in front of me, letting that thought awe me. "Bosch or Brueghel or even Duchamp has touched this, years and years before I even came to be. I am in the presence of greatness." It's a feeling I can't really convey to someone else. I don't care about the monetary value, but I know that having the knowledge that this or that work would be a contemporary fake would greatly falsify that feeling.
Same, it's like having a fake autograph of your favorite artist, why would you want that?
@@LoneWolfCODYT Many artists, particularly musicians and actors, sign tens of thousands of items. Many (such as Dylan and he's far from alone in this) use a machine to sign things for them. How is that less fake?
@@jennyjohn704 it isn't, I wouldn't want that
Did Berger ever pose or write about the machine art scenario? The internet is buzzing with a funny notion that “creativity is on the verge of dying.” Did the democratization of art set the stage for a paradigm that undercuts the power of the artist? For the moment art feels more accessible than ever. On the other hand, painting with computers is now in the hands of software engineers. Maybe it speaks to a convergence of societal roles?
Creativity IS on the verge of dying. Less independent thinking leads to less creative demands needing to be filled.
Who needs artists when everybody would be happy with a banksy copy?
@@mazolab Creative juices will always flow, of course.
I'd take a banksy copy but I'd call it a poster.
saying a computer made that art is the same thing as saying leonardo's paintbrush made the mona lisa. an artist created that AI art program.
You are truly underrated
This is one of the best channels on RUclips. Love it ♥️
i am an artist, i don't care about the market value, i think when they go for millions it's money laundering by the mega rich, however what i want from art, making, showing, appreciating, is all possible without the market even existing, if it was done so everyone involved could survive comfortably but this wouldn't add to millions very often
I have a copy of Primavera by Botticelli on my wall. I love it! It’s not as big as the original, its in my dining room and I don’t care if it’s not the original, but still pretty big. I payed $250 for it. It’s on the wall right in front of me every night when I eat dinner and it makes the food taste better and dinner time more pleasurable. I would say I made my own shrine around my painting, it’s a part of a ritual I and my husband I every night. It’s also in a traditional gilded frame, to honor its origins. I am an artist my self so I truly honor art. I believe you can do so with a copy if you have specific intent.
I'm not sure why this is really a question. It's the same if its the mona lisa or a concert Tshirt....it's about being there, or by their hand or in their studio or apartment. Authenticity is all that's important...its never really been exactly about the painting. Maybe its over my head. I appreciate your channell and insights. Thanks for the effort
Some paintings I’ve been able to appreciate and love even from reproductions because the message they convey is readily available. Even with some Picasso’s or Van Gogh you can tell it’s a woman or a landscape. But there are certain paintings that their true impact, their true meaning, is only apparent for me, in real person. Pollock and Rothko come to mind. Only by seeing their art at the MOMA was I able to truly see and understand how it made me feel.
Have you seen Van Gogh in person? I thought his paintings to be childish. Flat and uninspiring, until I saw the real thing.
I think the space the original painting is in plays a big part in how we see the painting. The environment of an art exhibit vs my bed room are two different spaces entirely. In an exhibit I am meant to ponder the subject matter and look at the space as a whole. Not to mention the scale of the piece. In my bedroom I am invited to lounge and wouldn’t give too much of a second though to the art. Which might now even be the same scale.
Amazing video as always. I understand your point and agree with you too. However, I would still want to at least see the original artwork and it will always be special for me, because, well the Artist touched those paints, and canvas and created that masterpiece. By seeing the original painting, I would be in close proximity to something that the artist physically interacted with. THAT feeling will always be very different from any printed replica - no matter how authentic it looks. I am not an artist, nor am I studying art, but I do enjoy exploring artworks and knowing their story, hence it is important for me to see the original painting!
I disagree. There is more to art than the mere image. The Huntington Library has The Blue Boy and Pink Lady in the same room at opposite ends. The experience of seeing the magnitude of the two paintings in this environment is unique.
However it still is a mere image, just one we are enchanted by
And what if there was no way to experience the art except as a reproduction. Not everyone is going to see that painting in that room. Would it be fair if a second hand observer admired the image, but was considered invalid. And the architectural set up of the room is an image to pay homage to the original paintings which emphasize how invalid a second hand experience is so you'll visit that museum.
Not an attack, just a thought experiment.
I enjoy (and sometimes get overwhelmed by) the presence of humans before me. When I stand in front of a Van Gogh, one of my favorite artists, I'm not just admiring his technique, or the subject matter, or even the emotion that's been invoked in me, I'm also remembering...he was here. Over a hundred years ago, the man himself touched this canvas, swirled that paint, gazed out the window and put down what he saw. A man, who like so many others, suffered. But when I see his art I can say: You were here. You did this.
It's not just Van Gogh. Any piece of original art carries the trace of artist, if only because we stared at the same canvas. You don't get that with mass produced reproductions.
The reason I (and probably other people) don't like replicas is because they're usually printed on a flat surface and thus lacking the texture of the original, be it brush strokes or impasto or imperfections. I love to look at paintings from really close to see all of that - which makes paintings like the Mona Lisa, where accessibility is not given, quite uninteresting to me. Funny enough, because no visitor comes close enough to study the texture, no one could be 100% sure it is the original. To me, the romanticism around highly valuable art is similar to the cult around famous people. The alleged higher importance is simply a higher degree of publicity and nothing inherent in the art or person.
Replicas of art raise their level of popularity and leads to increased demand, which results in higher prices.
I like the analogy of celebrity people and celebrity art -- it really leaves it up to the educated (or uniquely sensitized) observer to understand these categories and whom they apply to, at least in that one person's opinion. But, do we really all need to be on the same page on this? I actually don't care if that particular Mona Lisa is fake - I don't connect with her either way.
Only at 4:36 so if this is addressed please excuse my comment, but for me when it comes to what the significance it honestly comes down to the sheer age being the main reason. And the fact such a respected artist being directly connected to the work
Didn't know Calson like things other than chess.
Why will I sit and stare at a beautiful sunset and merely glance at a beautiful photograph of same?
Copies just don't have the emotional connections of originals in anything.
Would you be interested in going to the Smithsonian to view a replica of the Wright Bros plane?
There is scale to consider as a reproducing an original at a much smaller size loses a lot in translation. Also colour is often not the best; I have bought catalogues to exhibitions I've been to and been disappointed at some of the colour. Texture also plays a role, and that is a lot harder to reproduce - the lighting in your house will be very different to that in a gallery and thus the shadow on impasto tracts will not appear correct etc.
This takes me back to reading “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" by Walter Benjamin and his discussion of Aura of the original work of art and how mechanical reproducibility inadvertently increases its value
That's the definitive work on this topic, thanks for posting.
I really wouldn't mind a replica, but an original has remnants of the soul of the artist in my opinion. A copy to me tends to feel cold and lifeless, knowing a machine produced it, even if the image evokes positive emotions. The original you can just feel it was constructed by human hands, the artwork has a soul.
I've always been fascinated by the ephemeral nature of art. The obsession with art preservation is one aspect of that. The idea of the great artist drawing in the sand on the beach, knowing the tide would wash it all away hours later. Does that make the art more or less valuable? Can a duplicate be as meaningful as an original? Is the soot-stained, cloudy ancient fresco more or less valuable than it was when it was vibrant and fresh?
And aren't museums, ruins and sites just images themselves on a wider scale to enhance the prestige of the originality of the original artwork people already saw. How is the Louvre, Moma or Persepolis any different then a wide scale installation that make you feel glad you shelled out money for going to Paris, New York or Iran, so just another image
What a thought-provoking essay, thanks a lot. For me, aside from content (and yes, the risk of easy reproduction, for sure), and the “awe of having survived” as Borger well said, it is the 3-dimensionality of the canvas (impasto on Van Gogh’s canvas), the framing, its original context (Last Supper, in Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan), sometimes the conversation with other paintings in the viewing room, that make it so worthwhile seeing original works. I don’t feel conditioned ! But the other point is that there are reproductions that make absolute sense like the replica of the prehistoric Lascaux paintings in France (for conversation reasons), placed in their original context !
Thanks again for the great channel. B
Because with original paintings, the artist touched it, stood before it, held it, breathed on it, gave their energy to it...
In my opinion, it's the imagination and narrative of the original artist putting their soul into the original painting that is the attraction.
One thing for sure, as long as the original exists, it can be copied and compared. If it were to be lost, we'd never know sure if the copies got it right.
I would disagree with "if you saw a perfect recreation in a hallway you'd ignore it."
I saw a reproduction of Cafe Terrace at night by Van gough in a friend's house and it _haunted me_.
Every time I was there I would take some time to look at that print.
I see art that is superior to the Mona Lisa on Instagram and Tumblr every day. But the Mona Lisa has the history and backstory to make it more interesting
"When you buy something from an artist you're buying more than an object. You're buying hundreds of hours of errors and experimentation. You're buying years of frustration and moments of pure joy. You're not buying just one thing, you are buying a piece of a heart, of a soul, a small piece of someone's life."
I believe the originals matter, and although reproductions further preserve an artists legacy, they in a way, devalue the artist.
I felt compelled to reflect on three "copies" of art that have affected me personally.
While on a research trip to England, I scheduled an out-of-the-way trip to a tiny village to see Shandy Hall, the home of Rev. Laurence Sterne, the author of "The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy". This book, which I had purchased in paperback form, contains all the ideas of the original manuscript. Although I don't recall seeing a manuscript copy, I was astounded to see cabinet after cabinet of leather bound first editions of these works from the mid 1700s. Now here's the thing: looking at these books on the shelf filled me with wonder not because I read the words within, but rather because in that moment I was in the presence of so many books that must have given their readers similar experiences as I had when I read my paperback copy. And since they had the advantage of being much older than myself, I can only imagine how many readers must have encountered Sterne's ideas through these tools of expression.
When I saw Duchamp's "Fountain" at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, I had already seen dozens of pictures of it. Seeing the work in 3 dimensions gave me no extra appreciation of the piece. But seeing "it", the thing, the object, the urinal turned into a statement, now exhibited as an example of high art worthy of public attention, recontextualized it in my mind. I could no longer think of the piece as a mere concept, but instead as a locus of the attention of critics. I imagine their eyes locking onto the photons reflected from it's glazed ceramic surface slamming at light speed into the retinas of the taste makers of the day, exciting electrical impulses that wound their way around their brains eventually illiciting emotional reactions of laughter, anger, awe, grief, etc.
One more meditation: at Harper's Ferry, West Virginia, there is a bible. This is not unusual. It's an old bible, but then again, not old enough that would make it outstanding among surviving bibles of it's era. The reason it's on display is because this particular bible belonged to John Brown, the slavery abolitionist who attempted an armed uprising against slaveholders. It was that particular bible that inspired Brown's zeal, it was that particular bible that he turned to for guidance. One can imagine any other bible of the same printing would be functionally interchangeable with the one on display, yet the importance of it's preservation and exhibition, just like Sterne's first edition prints, doesn't come from the text, but rather from the object itself. This was *the* copy of an artwork that connects the present time to a crucial moment 160 years ago.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
i think its the fact that i am seeing the painting that a great artist has once touched many years ago. it's like a message from the past. it connects me to the artist imo. a perfect copy would be functionally the same, but it would not really be the very first iteration of the artwork that survived to our day. I think this is why it means much to me. maybe it's different for other people. and I am glad that art is being more and more democratized, it means more people can enjoy it
I disagree.
1 - Art was often made to be public: handprints in communal caves, frieses on Greek temples, frescoes in cathedrals, mosaics in Roman bathouses, statues in public squares, etc.
2 - The copy will never be identical to the original. Posters are made with dyes on paper, not oil on a canvas. The tv screen doesn't convey the feeling of looking up at the ceiling of a cathedral.
3 - We already make copies to protect the more valuable original. There's a reproduction of the whole Lascaux cave made solely to protect a prehistoric work of art from the visitor's body heat and breath.
4 - Sometimes democratisation is the point. There was recently a scandal of a tycoon having illustrated prayer books in his home which should have been in the national museum. No one would've cared if he had copies, the offense was that he claimed exclusive right to the "peasants'" treasure.
5 - It's about a labor of love. My family has given and recived hand made art as gifts. Machine made copies would only be acceptable if the originals were lost. Mass producing them would be an insult to the gift-giver.
The price of Mona Lisa varies so much because it is priceless.
this is an interesting point ive never thought about. but i think i have my own personal answer.
my favorite painter of all time is van gogh. but i dont base this only on his paintings, its who he was as a person. his story, his mind, what he went through. i adore him and i pity him and i love him and i miss him, even though i never knew him.
when i see his paintings, what came first into my mind is not an appreciation of it as an art, but as an extension of his mind and daily life. when i see his sketches i see him sketching, when i see his paintings i see him sitting in front of a canvas set up on the streets, meadows, fields. i see him when i see his paintings.
to be able to see the original would have moved me so much in this case. he made this! every stroke of paint was made by his hands! what could he be thinking at the time? what did he see? does he stop to consider the angle of this one flower? or the shade of that womans face? i think of him and of how the real painting im seeing right in front of my eyes is so very loved by millions of others, each with entirely different reasons of how i loved it, so far into the future.
a perfect copy done by third parties still would not have contained his soul in it. i think things like these matters to a lot of people.
If you've never seen the originals you've never seen his art. A photograph doesn't do it justice. I spent the first twenty years of my lie pouring scorn on the art world for celebrating his efforts at finger painting, until I saw them in the flesh.
It is at that moment that art occurs. It's not in the creation, nor the finished product, it is when it comes to life in the mind of the eye.
A copy is like a clone, it draws itself from the original without which, there is no standard to compare against or worth to bother with making a replica of at all.
Thank you, as an Art teacher I'm sure John Berger's series will be of a great interest.
On the same theme, did you watch Orson Welles' "F for Fake"? It revolves aroung art forger Elmyr de Hory, exploring and deconstructing the very concepts of authorship and expertise, another way to tackle the notion of authenticity in Art.
How did you write this and not approach Benjamin? It's almost a breath of fresh air!
…just a casual art expert coming through…it is obvious that the competition is not exhaustingly arbitrarily Mutual. Naturally the meaning can be derived from the experience granted by its own mastery and I am positively convinced that this arrangement is stellar in its execution
Seeing the thickness of the paint on the Picasso was worth the trip. It was amazing. And I did get close. So close that I set off the alarm.
The question is, why is the mona lisa so famous ?!!!! 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️1
A photo isn't the same as the painting, they have texture, the way the light hit them changes the way they look.
I just found this channel, and holy shit you’ve blown me away. It usually takes me a little before I sub to channel but this is the second vid I’ve watched and I already got notifications on. This is some great content, thank you for this.
this might be the most profound concept you've covered. Love it
Great video. I enjoy this topic a lot as it's almost so obvious yet difficult to explain. It's the same conversation being had right now about the value of NFT's and the perception of value.
I think NFTs play on the human psychological desire to "own" something. Even though a buyer thinks they own an NFT artwork, they don't, but they're convinced they do. Which apparently is good enough.
Great questions, I think the answers of what it lost with reproductions has a lot to do with the ideas of personal prestige "I saw the original Mona Lisa" not so much as to getting any insight from it as to "getting associated" with something remarkable, like taking selfies with famous people: association and to get a aura of prestige. Also a fetishist pleasure. So the satisfaction from originals, not just in art, also with historical objects, trips, persons met has a fetishist basis. Not better, not worse, but has little to do with the art enjoyment itself. So fetishism, associations, prestige and elevating oneself... which is very childish in the worst sense :P
I am here to appreciate the way you mimicked the original video with your own image. Chef's kiss!
also interesting to think about works whose processes involve physical reproduction, such as printmaking or bronze casting, where there was always meant to be more than one final object
Wait though... a print of the MonaLisa wouldn't be the same, what about the brushwork and all the layers.
I mostly agree with these points, Though for me this "religiosity" originates from the respect and awe for the artist. That is why I would stare at the "real" Starry Night more than a reproduction, even if the "original" one is fake. The knowledge that the real Van Gogh worked on this is what turns it into a religious icon worthy of worship
Reproductions of historic art are incredibly sought after by myself & others here on your channel. It’s true I don’t display religious art from the renaissance in my home but I do seek it out along with its history here on RUclips. The power of historic art does not hold most modern viewers in the same awe as those who viewed in originally in the worshipful atmosphere of cathedrals but we are in awe of not just the art but the culture of those who originally produced and consumed it. The monetary value is just a means of curating and preserving it. We don’t all get to know or feel it’s true meaning and value, this may take years and elude some, even most, of us entirely.
For me, and perhaps others in earlier comments (forgive me if I am repeating) the attraction to the original is that it was touched, breathed upon, created, changed, manipulated, loved hated... by a real human being who was a genius, a flawed, living human being...and when I have my minor struggles with brush, canvas , paint I know that I am not alone. They too ...(. I don't give a tinkers dam about the money. Banksy shredding his art, as an act of art to create new art was perfection.) The breath of that old flawed genius in Florence is in that aged, cracked paint and that is the soul of the piece.
It's an interesting subject. One way to see it is how Walter Benjamin saw It: the originality of an obra depends of Its "soul". All the story behind the obra. Some times even a copy at the beginning starts to have an artistic value because (in words of Heidegger, I think I don't remember well) it's in the artistic constellation and has a original soul (or aura). It's an interesting subject.
And, in my things, the market (and the price) is an interesting thing but not a way to see the value of an obra. Jaja.
It's coz it came from the artist's genuine, sheer mind & idealism, that's the importance of authenticity. It came from the artist's definition of a certain imagery.
"This is how the artist sees the world."
That's why works of artists like Van Gogh hold high value, as oppose to picture copy produce.
I saw a documentary on TV back in 1979 showing that the Mona Lisa is fake. It has "THIS IS A FAKE" written on the canvas in Sharpie but you can only tell with an X-Ray. Though strangely the fake was also painted by Leonardo.
Also, what if time travel was invented and you could go back in time to get freshly made pieces from the great masters? Would they be demed fake due to showing no age? What if we go even further to the point both time travel and intersimensional become available, meaning we could get infinite newly made masterpieces by the hands of the masters, what would happen with the value?
Stand before any human made object from 500yrs ago and one from today and tell me you don't feel any reverence for the older one. It speaks to us as humans, where we have come from and where we will go. All of our differences and yet all of our similarities.
I think to me what makes the originals so special is the human contact that was involved with a world long gone. People generations before me I have seen with us some very few people have touched it, it’s kind of like looking at a metal sculpture and seeing the shiniest part where people would be touching something and the oils of their fingers causing it to shine brighter than the rest of the statue. It’s the human connection
The answer lies in the scam of art valuation - buying art early and holding it for a time before reselling can generate enormous wealth. I have a friend whose parents are moderately wealthy, but they were 'into' art and bought Warhol's, Hockney's, Koons and others early on, for not terribly much $- purchased so many to the point my friend had a stack of these leaning against a wall in a spare room - millions of dollars in art not even displayed - but increasing in value year after year.
I think Warhol's screen prints of Campbell's soup cans and Marilyn Monroe were commentaries on the commidifying of art - and of course now they are highly prized (and priced) pieces of art - which is pretty ironic when you consider it.
Great question! I really enjoy your videos - please keep with the challenging questions. I would say the one word - which was mentioned - AUTHENTICITY - people like the encounter with the actual - that's what brings the meaning -- thank you
If it's fake, then honestly at this point it's hung there long enough not to matter.
if the mona lisa was fake or not, it wouldnt change the outcome. still travelled, admired, payed, took a photo, and so on. you wouldnt know, so its pointless. atleast its the closest to the real thing. for example me seeing a copy of the mona lisa in the school hallway doesnt bother me or give me any kind of reaction or satisfaction, is because it just wouldnt be possible for the real one to be there. even if it wasnt the real thing inside the louvre i wouldnt mind going there anyway, its the closest thing… you get what im trying to say?
Vaino ■ That makes sense ! But you _know the Mona Lisa_ in the hallway is not real. When you travel to see the original ... the curators of the museum are presenting a copy ... not telling the public ... that is deliberate deception. It kinda taints the whole experience of traveling w / anticipation ... of thinking you are going to have the experience of seeing the real art-work of a famous printing. If the public knew the truth, before going to the Louvre, the curators would lose money ; attendance ... their bottom-line isn't about sharing the work w / the public ! Their purpose is commercial-value which cheapens the art. In another of his insightful videos, The Canvas, pointed-out that the Mona Lisa was placed in a very obscure place, surrounded by many other paintings. It wasn't until the Mona Lisa was stolen & then recovered, that the public ( by the hundreds of thousands ) lined-up to see it. It now has a distinctive place in the museum [ the only painting in the room ].
We should not be lied to when it comes to Art. The Artist (s) would not appreciate the forgeries / photo-copies, imo.
congrats on 100k subs! I love your videos
I am never going to see a Van Gogh in my life so being able to study his work online and thru reproductions is more than fine to me. Yes Van Gogh touched the original and that connection is amazing and makes them historical and cultural treasures, but me personally, I would be thrilled with a good fake.
It must be said that original works are important for research and study. For example , with radiology techniques the scholars can discover older versions of that painting underneath , that were modified by the artist later.
For me its also the material that plays a huge role, old parchment, canvas, handmade paints artist mixed himself. It used to be much more personal and labour intensive. The elevation of paint that cannot be experienced by 2d scan. To think someone poured their skill and soul into that very material with their own hands. A reproduction especially printed one looses that completely.
So much food for thought here. Thanks for another great video!
Personally for me, it depends on what kind of painting it is to make me prefer the original over a replica. Things like texture, provenance, and the artist's original touch can't be easily reproduced. But if those things aren't particularly important to me for that particular painting, I'm more than happy to just hang an image up on my wall just to see the picture. I display Monet and Rockwell pieces taken from calendars up in my room because I care for the image more than anything else.
For any paintings I buy in the future, I probably won't care about the provenance so much as I care for the image and the life it brings to my life because in the end, that's what it's supposed to do! I may never have a real van gogh in my home at any point in my life, but I can get a replica of starry night or irises and still get the same feeling I'd get from being with the original because the meaning is still the same. Van Gogh painted his work only once- he put that love and time and energy into that one piece. Because he put the work into that painting, creating that image, any reproductions- in my mind- will carry that same weight.
It's like a book. No matter how many times it's been re-printed, or what version of the story I'm reading, Frankenstein, as a work, will always move me because it's forever going to be made of Mary Shelly's love and energy, no matter how it's reproduced.
Also, sometimes you can just like an image! Who cares about the provenance if its a nice painting that you like and wanna keep around! Do we care about the provenance of our furniture or our dishes? Then why drop your love for a piece if it suddenly isn't as special as you thought it was? Art should be loved for art's sake, not for how fancy its history is.
I was told by a friend who had worked at the Louvre over 20 years ago that the Mona Lisa painting in the Louvre is a fake. The reason behind this is because a. if it ever got destroyed by a terrorist attack, which are many in France, then that would be it, no more Mona Lisa which is arguable the most famous painting historically, and b. no one would be able to tell the difference (spectators and experts alike would not get anything less from looking at an exact replica) - a replica would be an exact copy, the only difference is the paint used, and that it's not the original.
The artist's physical presence with the tangible item is why we view things "mystically" or assign greater "historical value." We are basically obsessed with fame and knowing any historical figure touched and sat before the work, laboring over it meticulously, means that it's worth something. It's not a benevolent advent, it's a sickness.
Of course it is different. The original is the one the artist touched, felt, was around, inspired by. It is THE ONE.
The original is the artist.
What if your favourite person in the world was cloned. Would it be different? Yes, because they are not the one. They are not they. They are because of and off of they.
I LOVE YOUR CHANNEL!!!!! Glad I found it!
If tomorrow we find out the Monalisa isn't authentic, I wouldn't feel deceived, since I haven't had the chance to look at it longer/closer enough to connect with the humanity of the painting.
When you see the original Starry Night you are seeing the painting done by Van Gogh personally in Saint-Remy-de-Provence, France in 1889. Reproductions and photographs do not have this distinction.
Maybe it just me, but there are some art pieces in person feel so much diffrent in person then online, now thus might be that some piece have so interesting textures when looked closely. Maybe its not the point of the works to be looked so closely but to me it give them a big diffrence
No, a replica will never have the same value as the original. That's because in order to make an original piece of art, you need to imagine an idea, a topic and through the art of creation you made it into a piece of art, imbuding the work with a part of your essence. In a replica Thies Doesn't happen, the person or machine that copies it doesn't come up with an original idea, nor does it imbude the replica with its essence, since it's a copy. It requires technical skill, but in our actual view of art that doesn't mean anything. However, taking inspiration and making your art inspired on someone elses is acceptable, since you have to come up with an original idea and imbude the artwork with yourself. In order to make art truly democratic we do not have to have a print of the Mona Lisa in every house, instead we have to give everyone the means to make their own art based in the Mona Lisa.
Unique painting can never be reproduced, as it changes when looked from different angles.
The louvre isn’t selling you a 30 second time share of the priceless art. They are selling exclusivity. Humanity is basically a greedy lot. Not everyone can afford to travel to France for a selfie. It’s a “in your face” childish Nah na na nana to all their friends and family.
😂 I can't think of anything more stressful than trying to quietly contemplate Mona Lisa at the Louvre, your comment at least gives a humourous perspective on the whole debacle 🙈
How can one assume the feeling, evoked by the fake, is the same feeling, evoked by the original, if one has never seen the original?
Yeah i agree with most of the comments saying what hold value is the fact the man/woman we hold so high in regard placed their hands on it. Why is a Brush that Monet Used and cant even be used to paint anymore worth more than a normal brush that you can paint with? Because he used it, he himself owned it, artifacts are important. I agree from an art standpoint it shouldnt make a difference from how the art itself makes you feel. If i can own reproductions that have the exact brush strokes and layers that monet used id plaster my house with them. I hafta look into that though because i'd definitely buy a bunch of them lol.
Its like saying family heirlooms and ancient artifacts found on earth arent important because we can make things that look the same. I never knew people had this debate though, i thought it was pretty cut and dry that things that survived through history are important and worth money. A show that was huge at one point was pawn stars, which is literally just buying cool shit from history and determining if its actually from history. I guess its like that argument, would you rather be lied too and feel good or be told the truth and feel bad, was the lie really a lie if it made you feel the same as if it were the truth originally, no lol.
I think the historical factor is what makes the original more special for me
So what would they be keeping the original for? It’s not like they’d be waiting for a specific day to roll around where they sell the original… so why have the original sitting away, locked in a safe, unseen by anyone that doesn’t work in close proximity to it? Would it be kept just to keep the original for hundreds of years in the future?
Texture and the essence of the artist
I like the meta thought of understanding that this video is itself a representation of easily accessed art for all, that we choose to still watch because of the mystery of art.
I believe it has been double blind tested if violinists could tell the difference between stradivarius violins and high quality modern violins. Turns out no one could really tell the difference and often times people preferred the modern one. A similar phenomenon has been found with high end audio gear. Simply being told that what one is listening to is special is enough to have people precieve something different in the sound, when there really isn't a difference. Context changes perception. Guess it's the same with visual art too.
I understand the conceptual side of what you are saying, however I have to piont out one thing. The original cannot be recreated. The artist stood in front of the piece of canvas in front of which you are now standing. They mixed the paint and some lost their minds painting these painting.
I doubt the mona lisa would be so famous without the invention of photography.
Where can I buy perfect reproductions for $20 ? I only seen posters in that price range. It would be cool to have a brush stroke perfect reproduction of Mona Lisa and if it so cheap I could buy several.
what an amazing video on an extremely interesting topic!!!! much to think about truly. thank you
I think the biggest thing missing from a reproduction of art is it’s history a reproduction of the Mona Lisa doesn’t have the long history of the painting