| Author | Message | ||
  Suz |
Hey Waterdog.. I am an avid swimmer too...but I suck at math! I have a lap pool and swim a 1/3 mile everyday but Sunday! Glad to meet ya... | ||
waterdog |
This has been an interesting series. Sorta in part a comparison of fine and commercial art. I'm a retired teacher who pitched my math books and picked up brushes. I have done almost the same painting more than once, but it was because the subject was really appealing to me. I treated it differently each time, such as an old farmhouse and fields in fall, spring and summer. I also used different techniques for the trees and fields, and moved the outbuilding and fence around. I sold 3 of these. The first one my daughter grabbed and said 'You're not selling this one" One also reads of arists working on a series of paintings based on maybe one landscape or other subject. I agree that actually duplicating a painting would be boring and not what I would recommend unless it is commercial art for sale. And since we're being un-anonymous, I'm Lou. Always liked to swim, and now like watercolors, hence 'waterdog'. | ||
rainbow |
Jane, I make the distinction between "similar" and the same (as in the original post). I think everyone has preferred, even favorite subjects. I am an amateur but there are things I have painted previously that I can't wait to try again to see the development (or lack thereof, please no!)of my skills. But there are so many variations of styles, lighting, vantage point, color schematic, media, etc., that I hope I can explore these favorites successfully without copying precisely. It is different since I don't make my living from my art but I think I would prefer to go the limited edition reproduction route of a kick butt piece while I work on my next masterpiece or variation on the theme, if I were to that point. | ||
jandrle |
Rembrandt painted portraits of people in black clothes with prim white collars to support himself. All of the costumed paintings he did that are so amazing were what he wanted to paint, but there was no market for them. It is a fine line, supporting oneself and growing as an artist. When I wonder what direction I am going I always revisit this. Jane | ||
Robert |
I think in the end, it kindda depends upon your needs and goals. If you are struggling to always advance your own vision, then reeexploing various compositions and themes in terms of altering color, technique., mood etc seems not only valid but positively instructive and useful. Such paintings are not duplicates (just as the 4 screams, the 2 madonnas on the rocks, the 8 monet cathedrals, the gazillion Monet waterlillies, the ubiquitous O'Keefe flower/vulvas) but explorations of a theme. On the other hand, if you are trying to produce what sells in the inexpensive art marketplace (not the high brow gallery setting but the art fair) then you might reproduce ad infinitum what sells. This seems on the artist's (artisan's?) part valid because their goal is to sell, not to explore self expression with each piece. It does threaten to reduce the artist to merely a grinder out of "Velvet Elvises" however. The final issue is with the consumer. If I pay 50 bucks for an "original" that the artist has 5 more of ferreted away, am I getting duped? Technically, maybe, but practically speaking, what can you expect for $50? Another way of putting this is--can opne really expect an atrist to put forth the thought and time and trial and error waste we know it takes to produce one great composition and then sell it for a pittance? The fact that people are willing to copy their successful compositions and sell them cheaply is a big favor to the low end consumer. I think it's a tangled issue. When I reproduce a painting ver batim am I at that moment an artist? Or am I more like a sweat shop employee producing copies for my artist alter eg0? | ||
jandrle |
I recently did a painting that a woman wanted, but wanted me to see if I could make small modifications. Rather than try to alter an already successful watercolor, I decided to paint it again with the modifications so she would be pleased with it and I could feel good about the quality of the piece I am selling her. So I have a watercolor that is tragically similar to the one I am selling. Fortunately the sale is two thousand miles away, so the odds of two people encountering each other is slim. I can't afford to throw the first painting away... I feel slightly uncomfortable about the whole situation, yet I feel that repainting is the appropriate thing in this case. I also just did a series of "tourist art" for a show I am doing of local street scenes that have popular restaurants in them... years ago, maybe fifteen, I painted the restaurants and sold them. That was before I was scanning and archiving my work... didn't even think of it as repainting until I read this thread. I will say that I doubt the pieces look all that much the same, my work has changed so much over that time... This web site is provocative and I will admit, as ethical and hard working as I am, sometimes I rethink what I am doing based on the posts I read. Jane | ||
Kukana |
Yep, We are all OK after Frances, thanks for asking. As a matter of fact, Im in GA right now for the Yellow Daisy Festival getting ready to go set up in the rain.But we are suppose to have good weather the rest of the week. Interesting happened this weekend.I was at the Powers Crossroads show and bought a piece of pottery form a fellow potter that I know and respect. I paid $80 for a small hand throuwn, hand carved porclin votive candle holder...a lot for me to spend on a small item but I liked him and his work. I no sooner had my piece wrapped and under my arm than he pulled out another one, virtually identical and put it in the same place. I was at first surprized but still love my piece just the same. The real question is , if I had to do it over again, would I have spent the $80 for the votive so easily replaced. I decided the answer was yes. -Suz- | ||
Garydoc (Garydoc) |
Hey Robert (Heironymous)...John Smith is a real name too! (lol) I have at least 2 or 3 patients by that name. Back to the main discussion tho'...The Scream of which another one was recently stolen is a series of 4 very similar paintings. When lay people (not artists) find that out they think its unfair and when those of us who study art history find out, we think "well of course, that theme needed to be developed." We all develop our themes with repeats, but doing the "exact" same painting twice is cheating IMHO. That's what giclee etc is for. And that does not include commercial lines, Suzy! (Hope you're ok after Frances) (Really John, who are you!) | ||
Heironymos |
Glad to meet you John. From now on I'm Heironymos. Robert | ||
John Smith |
Robert, I'm enjoying these conversations! And I think it's healthy to hear all these veiws. But I do agree with your way of thinking. Also I agree that it's cowardly to sign on as anonymous, so from now on I'm John Smith. | ||
Robert |
Okay--your point is that even fine artists repeat works. But my point is that commercial artists do so because they are focused on what sells , upon the consumer's preference. This was what I was saying earlier. If a fine artist modifies his work--no two haystacks are alike--there are significant differences in the two madonna on the rock masterpieces--he does so to explore his own expressive needs. The artist who knocks out six verions of the same painting because he can sell them is not the same as Monet painting the cathedral at every hour of the day to expresses the differences in light at each hour. I don't think we disagree--you've introduced a new idea: fine artists creating similar works in order to expolore their expressive potential (not to sell the same painting six times). | ||
SutureSelf |
Robert, for me to keep your words sufficiently in context, I would have to cut'n'paste your entire post, but that's not necessary, since it's right there six posts below mine for anyone to read. The real context, though, is the whole thread, which concerns the ethics of an artist repeating his work. You chose to interpret the non-repeating-artist versus the repeating-artist idea in terms of fine art versus commercial art. You ultimately exaggerated the difference for dramatic effect by using Monet as the personification of fine art and a cereal box as the embodiment of commercial art. I simply pointed out, using your Monet reference as a springboard, how even the personification of fine art allows for repeated compositions. Monet also had an eye cast toward the marketplace. While you may carp about my taking your words out of context (which, okay, I may have done a teensy li'l bit,) and claim that my doing so is an example of "what is wrong with internet discussion groups," (I hope that's not too out of context) the fact is that your quarrel was with my method, not with my point, which you did not address. Jerry | ||
Robert |
I was quoted as follows: Everybody repeats. Some more than others, some less; some more exactly from piece to piece, some less. Robert wrote, "I prefer looking at a monet..." Which one? This is so out of context and applies what I was saying totally differently than intended. What I said was "I prefer looking at a monet over a cereal box. " In context I was saying I prefer fine art (monet as an example) over commercial art (cereal boxes as an example). This is what is wrong with internet discussion groups. Out of context misquoting. This is also what is wrong with political debate. | ||
SutureSelf |
Everybody repeats. Some more than others, some less; some more exactly from piece to piece, some less. Robert wrote, "I prefer looking at a monet..." Which one? A picture of haystacks? How about a picture of haystacks. Maybe you'd prefer a picture of haystacks. For a change of pace, try a picture of haystacks. Maybe a painting of the Rouen Cathedral. Or, alternatively, a picture of the Rouen Cathedral. Monet repeated himself. If it soothes your mind, you could call the repetitions "themes" or "series" or "explorations." While he may not have done the "same" picture twice, in making the distinctions we find ourselves dealing with degrees rather than kinds. The anonymous writer wrote, "It would be like thinking you got a steal on the Mona Lisa but later finding out it was a darn good copy by Joe Schmo." Well, no. First of all, who said anything about a "steal?" You pay what you pay. Second, if it's a "copy by Joe Schmo," then you're no longer talking about an artist doing his own picture more than once; you're talking about plagiarism. Third, Leonardo painted two "Virgin of the Rocks." One is in the National Gallery, London. The other is in the Louvre. I've seen 'em both. I suppose you wouldn't want to own one of them since, well, the guy down the street has one just like it. The original question was "Is this ethical?" Yes. You'd feel cheated? Unless you paid for worldwide exclusivity in perpetuity, get over it. Or not. Suit yourself. Jerry | ||
Robert |
If you are going to (justified or not) question another's artistic integrity, have the temerity to post as yourself rather than anonymous. Just my 2 cents. | ||
Anonymous |
Kukana, I think another distinction that I detect here is that you follow the composition that works for you (i.e. sells) but you have changed it (in your first post you mentioned "wooded" to "tropical" or in florals "traditional" and "tropical". I got the impression the original post referred to pieces that were, for all intents and purposes, a copy of the same thing, nearly exact. The others that are similar, I could take as a collector. But if I paid for an original masterpiece, I'd want the real deal, not something just like everyone on my block has. For that, I would order from the JCPenney catalog. It would be like thinking you got a steal on the Mona Lisa but later finding out it was a darn good copy by Joe Schmo. For your commercial lines, I think the consistency is expected because of the nature of that line. Just my 2 cents. | ||
Robert |
Kukana-- You are among the few who get to have her cake (be a creative artist) and eat it too (sell art to make a living). My highest compliments. | ||
Kukana |
Maybe I should have prefaced which art I was talking about.I do have art that I do strictly for the joy of the creative process. I also have art that I know will sell. Often the two overlap. Not always. I love my commercial lines. They are my heart and soul. Anyone who knows ir read my word can see that. I just did a new piece this weekend and it was fun,and creative, etc. But last week I had to turn out 10 pieces for a collection of fabricin the same line... 5 of the designs were straight off other pieces of sucessful work that I have. Thats what made me "famous" if you will...and that's what they wanted. The other five were new pieces that play off of and coordinate with the other five. All ten will now be developed into three more colorways giving me a total of 30 pieces. Thats commercial art..thats what I do to make a living. When I want to be creative for the pure joy of the creative process, I pull out different paper, and different pallettes and have a ball. I take classes from who ever is in town, teaching whatever they teach...simply for the pure joy of the creative process. Seriiusly, i don't care who is teaching or what...i just love to take art classes and be surrounded by other creative people Do I ever create masterpieces? Yes..in both venues of my work.I have creative breakthrough in both too. But I simply separate my work, which I love and feel so blessed to be able to make a living at, with my hobbie, which I also love...and do for the pure joy of it. ButI NEVER forget how fortunate i am to be sucessful at what i do commercially in the art field. I love it and love my following that buy and collect it. I feel equally blessed that I have a hobbie that gives me the release from my work. What a blessing that they are both art. | ||
Dale |
Robert-- Well said! | ||
Robert |
I don't think you can judge others motives for why they create their art. I know people who play guitar--some for a living. Those who make a living at it must play all sorts of stuff that the "creative" musicians who are hobbyist would not touch. But when one is selling art to catch the eye of a consumer and when one's rent depends upon whether they are attracted, then I suspect one often has some sure fire compositions to sell. It may be that we are here blurring the line between commercial art and fine art. One person paints a landscape to express his or her personal "stuff" in paint. The other tries to "guess" what someone visiting their art fair booth will buy. The first is engaging in fine art, the second in commercial art. Every once in awhile the first person sells, but his real; aim is to be true to his expressive vision. The second person is more interested in the consumer's vision. The arts have always been filled with both types--there's always been the Wayne Newton's and the Bob Dylans, the commerical jingle writers and the Beetovens, the Rodins and makers of barbie dolls. Shakespeare sonnets and hallmark greeting cards. The world is a multifarious place. That being said, I prefer looking at a monet over a cereal box. | ||
Anonymous |
Kukana, I'm retired. Was an art director most of my working years. Got tired sometimes, but never bored. Understand that you are doing it for a living and that perhaps you must repeat. But I don't think that is being very creative. Sounds like you think of painting as a job not as a creative process. If that works for you-- fine. It wouldn't for me. | ||
Kukana |
Sure I do. What do you do for a living? Do you ever get bored doing it? I used to do hair...that got boring a lot but I always had t act excited for each client. I was also a full time mom for a long time...That got old somedays too!Most JOBS do. I love art,but I do this for a living and most full time artist figure out good thing and then duplicate it a few times.Even though I experiment with new stuff, why should I Constantly reinvent the wheel?BBottom line, Im OK with it...Hey ..its a job! | ||
Anonymous |
Kukana, I know you're a professional artist and that's your livelihood, but don't you get bored painting the same thing again? | ||
Kukana |
I do it with landscapes and floral a lot. Each one is different and there is always sublte changes but when I come up with a good composition I use it a lot. I have evenused the same composition of a wooded scene I paint, changed it to palms and tropicals and it still works. I've changed a floral of tropical to tradional flowers but to me there is no doubt its the same composition. A lot of us that paint for living do it, whether they admit is or not. | ||
Anonymous |
A professional, successful artist I know often, after he sells a painting, does a duplicate and offers it for sale again. It might not be exactly the same because that is almost impossible in watercolor-- but very close. Is this ethical? If I bought a painting, and later saw the same thing for sale again, I'd feel cheated. Am I thinking right or am I being picky and maybe a little jealous? I'd like to hear your opinions. |
