Art Reproduction

In a recent article in ARTnews magazine, they have been covering a controversy about some recently discovered plaster casts that were supposedly done by Degas. There has been much debate as to whether or not these casts were in fact done by Degas, or if another artist created them some time after his death. Many scholars are very split on the subject. It is interesting to see that it really isn't the work itself that's important, but rather the artist themselves.

This idea of reproduction is very important, especially to me, as an artist who works in digital media. Digital artists are constantly plagued by the idea of an original work because of who easy it is to duplicate something digital. An amazing piece of art done on a program like Photoshop could be exactly reconstructed if someone followed the steps exactly. This is very different from something like a painting or a sculpture due to the fact that no single stroke or act will ever be the same.

This one of the most useful aspects of digital media and also its greatest weakness. Its ability to be so easily reproduced makes it much easier to distribute and commercialize. At the same time, having no true original it makes the piece worth less. This doesn't mean that paintings and sculptures can't be commercialized. Great works like the Mona Lisa and the statue of David have been reproduced so many times that it would be hard to find a person who has never seen at least a reproduction of them. The difference is that all of these works have an original.

I believe video is in a place somewhere between digital images and painting. Although it can still be easily reproduced, it still has something closer to an original. Compression is another one of those plus and minuses. Even though sites like YouTube make the spread of video art much easier, the loss of quality through compression still gives more value to the original. The only problem is most people don't appreciate great art, but instead appreciate a great artist.