The Original in Art

[€uroMeinke]

This quote got me thinking:

As to originals, I'm speaking from the point of view of someone who sells original art. Prints have their own value as representations of art of course (which is why I digitally watermark art I put online), but the collectors I work with really want to see that thick paint or those pencil grooves one finds on an original. Even the best giclee can't provide that. And if the piece is created digitally only that first file is original; other than the time-stamp, and correct me if I'm wrong here, aren't all subsequent copies of that file identical to the original?


I am definately one of those people that prefers original works of art. In painting the experience of seeing the brushwork, layering, texture of a work often propelit into something completely different. Once you see an original Van Gogh, the reporductions seem so flat and lifeless.

And yet there are plenty of art forms that seem to lack an "original." I think of musical composers, who create an original score - but each performance becomes a sort of attempt to achieve the artistic vision. Sometimes, that vision becomes a collaboration between compose, conducter, and musicians.

I'm also a huge fan of performance art, which similarly seemns to lack a definitive version though there may be many instances visioning the concept. So why the need for an original? Do even painting ever capture the image the artist first envisioned in his mind? Do we just consider this the best attempt, with the other artifacts of the original yieling clues to what the artist was really after - the addition of sand for texture to contrast the smothness of the paint, the layers betraying previous failed attempts at bringing the image to life, or the brush strokes hinting at the movement inherent in the static image?

Or is the original just a piece of sympathetic magic, a reliquary of the creative process whose possession might bestow us with similar creative or aesthetic powers?

Indeed just what is it we hope to grasp with an original work of art that a reproduction will not yield?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think in some ways you're tyring to compare the wrong things. For example, you're setting up the analogy original painting:a print as performance of a play::a different performance of the play. I think a more analogy is original paiting:a print as performance of a play::video tape of the same performance (or seeing live music::listening to a CD). I think you'd agree in that case that the dichotomy of impact between the two is pretty analogous. Watching a play on video tape is as different from watching it in person as seeing print of a Van Gogh is from seeing it in person.

Now, there is an analog in painting to the common practice in the performing arts of the constant (and necessary) reinterpretation of the original piece (i.e., sheet music, manuscripts, etc.). Rather than prints, people do reproduce, by hand, a work of art. Go to any major museum and you'll find aspiring artists galore copying works. Or take the case of these two works, the first (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/gsbidder/detail?.dir=5046&.dnm=d88b.jpg&.src=ph) being a reinterpretation in abstract sculpture of the the second (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/gsbidder/detail?.dir=5046&.dnm=bbf4.jpg&.src=ph).

Of course, this is fairly uncommon, and even more uncommon for such a copy/reinterpretation to become as recognized as the original. I suppose that's because in painting, the original is already in its final form, nothing more needs to be done for a viewer to experience it as the artist intended. Whereas with plays, music, etc., there needs to be a second, interpretive step from one medium (written) to another (performed).

Of course, a similar thing exists in painting, and is far more commonly seen, and that would be multiple people painting the same subject.

[€uroMeinke]

Hmmm - I not so sure I was trying to set up an analogy, rather to demonstrate that their are art forms that seem to lack a tangible original. Even if you take a live preformance to be analogus - there can be multiple live performances all with subtle nuances that make them distinct. I guess, here you have people flicking to the opening or closing night performances, but each one lives a transient existence - unlike a painting or a sculpture (in near term anyway - long term all art is transient).

[Ghoulish Delight]

In that case, I fall back on my second statement, that the physical arts are in their viewable form out-of-the box, while performance art is created in a transitory state. The artist in the former meant for it to be viewed mainly in the form it's in not as a reproduction, while the artist in the latter meant for it to be viewed as a transitory reproduction.

That's not to say there's no value in reading a play's manuscript, or examining a piece of sheet music for yourself. Certainly one can gain greater appreciation for a director's vision if you've read the play yourself. Just as one will appreciate a painting more if you're familiar with the subject of that painting (thus the constant research to identify who exactly Mona Lisa was and her relationship to DaVinci. And The Last Supper surely would not carry the same weight if it were just Twelve Dudes Having Dinner).

[€uroMeinke]

In that case, I fall back on my second statement, that the physical arts are in their viewable form out-of-the box, while performance art is created in a transitory state.

So what is it we hope to posses with an original work? Did Andy Warhol's Factory ever produce an original? Or any of the other "masters" who had apprentices taking care of many of the "details" of their works? Is one of Monet's endless paintings of haystacks "more original" than the others? Perhaps his first? Why do Tibeten monks create mandalas in sand paintings that vanish with the first wind?

I'm curious about what makes the "original" more valuable - and also what makes an original, original.

[lizziebith]

I'm so glad you split this discussion off and carried it forth!

I do agree that there is a little something like "sympathetic magic" in addition to the aesthetic component in an "original." I'm reading an interesting book on collection ("To Have and to Hold" by Philipp Blom) which begins with a quote by Walter Benjamin: "Every passion borders on chaos, that of the collector on the chaos of memory." The book isn't specific to art collection of course, but the author suggests that possession of objects of value carries an erotic power.

Note how both Chris and I have described the experience of being in the presence of original art in sensual terms!

More later...I must think.

[€uroMeinke]

Heh - sympathetic magic has always been my favorite argument for the existence and necessity of art.
:cool:

[Ghoulish Delight]

To me, it's the same thing that makes attending a live performance more valuable than seeing or hearing a recording. No matter how accurately reproduced, it still lacks the complete seonsory information one gets from actually being there. And while a show's performance varries from night to night, the gulf between night 5 and night 9 of a show's run is insignificant compared to the gulf between night 9 and a video recording of night 1.

Only by viewing an original painting are you sure that you are truly seeing the colors as they are, how the light reflects off of it, how it really looks as you change your angle of viewing. A reproduction, no matter how accurate, doesn't guarantee it.

So what is it we hope to posses with an original work? Uniqueness, I suppose. If you can make one copy, you can theoretically make countless others just like it, with any variation being error, not art. There will always be only one original.

Did Andy Warhol's Factory ever produce an original? Here painting tends more towards the performance arts model. Surely there was some original master image, just as there are original manuscripts. But its intent was to be reproduced, so reliance on those nuances of physicality is purposely avoided by the artist. Some similar cases are photography, prints from wood cuttings (Dali loved those), and sculpture from molds. In those cases, I'd consider an original one personally done, or personally supervised by the artist.

and also what makes an original, original.
My own definitiaion (though not perfect) boils down to a piece of art in the form (or as close to it) in which the artist intended it to be viewed as "complete".

[lizziebith]

The original can also be said to give us proximity with the muse/creator of the work... in the presence of an original, we experience a brush with the artist her/himself -- across time and distance, and for many of us this is as close as we get to that genius fire.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The original can also be said to give us proximity with the muse/creator of the work... in the presence of an original, we experience a brush with the artist her/himself -- across time and distance, and for many of us this is as close as we get to that genius fire.
I was just coming back to say eactly this. Just as we tend to hold on to things we know our loved ones possessed in an attempt to remain connected to them, we imbue the physical object on which the artist work with some of their "spirit", so to speak.

[€uroMeinke]

heh - I take that as one more for sympathetic magic ;)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

For some reason, improvisational jazz keeps popping into my mind as I read this thread.

I'm thinking about Charlie Parker recording, say, "Night in Tunisia". Original composition, original work of art. Later, when the song is performed live though, it is approached from a different angle each night. Such is the nature of improvisational jazz. A live rendition might actually become more sought after and more valuable and yet, bear little resemblance to the original.

It seems to me that these are all original pieces of art, each different and maybe none of them the way the artist originally intended. Maybe the original recording just captured a work in progress and each time it is performed gets closer to what Charlie initially was trying to capture. Maybe none of them are perfect, each filled with different imperfections, different tones and colors, different emotions. And even though a transcription of the original recording might be available, it doesn't make that original any more unique or valuable than any of the subsequent performances because the notes on the page aren't the art, it's what comes from Charlie's sax each night, from his soul.

(I don't know. Perhaps I'm just rambling off on a weird tangent but the other posts led me in that direction. :))