An original" or "fine art" prints as defined by the Print Council of America as an image drawn or etched or engraved on some surface by the artist, who prints a limited number of the pieces by hand (or personally supervises someone else doing it), then signs and numbers the individual prints and defaces the printing plate or erases the image on the lithographic stone. So original art is not a reproduction nor a copy. For example it can be an etching, a lithograph or a screen print produced in a limited edition by the artist if possible or if not it has been supervised by the artist. Each print is signed and numbered by the artist. Often it has the printers stamp on the reverse or bottom corner. How can you tell if it's an original and not a copy or reproduction? Get a magnifying glass and look carefully at the print. If it is an etching, it is pretty easy. First it will always have a plate mark around the image. This is a sort or relief or indent in...
Should artists stay with the same style of painting/drawing/ etc. or should they explore new styles and techniques and push the boundaries? How many times have you looked at a painting and you know exactly who painted it. I don't mean a well known painting but a work that you haven't seen before or just vaguely know it but yet you can immediately identify the artist. So, should artists stay with what they do best and what sells best or should they stick their neck out and try something totally different? I think they should go for the latter. I understand why many go for the first approach. We all have to live and pay the bills so naturally if one style sells well and gets popular it must be very difficult to turn ones back on it and try a new style. However, I believe many successful artists go for the easy way out and churn similar work as they know it's what the gallery wants and it's what sells. But is that not boring? It's like eating the same food ...
Comments
Post a Comment