Question Computer generated art.

snafu

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Posts
1,122
Location
GA
If artwork is generated on the computer can it ever be a tangible original?
Or it limited to reproductions?

I have a client looking at a local artist work. She photographs landmarks manipulates on her computer to form the end product usually a giclee. Now I have someone wanting an original of one of her pieces.


Thanks.


 
In my opinion the only way this form of artwork could be considered an original is if the digital file that it was produced from is deleted and no other prints were made but the one initial print.
 
Interesting concept that has grown so much already. A good graphic designer is every bit as much of an artist as a good, well Artist!


IMO, people have shown repeatedly that there is a market for something pretty to look at, nomatter what the medium.

However, to market digital artwork as an 'original' seems lkinda silly. Would it be better just to limit the printing and market it that way?


p.s... Oh yea, thats what Dave said! Should've read that first!!!
 
Deleting the file after the printing when doing a limited edition print would also be necessary to possibly make it a true limited edition.

Kind of like scoring an etching plate...
 
Deleting the file after the printing when doing a limited edition print would also be necessary to possibly make it a true limited edition.

Kind of like scoring an etching plate...


While I appreciate that thought, I wonder if even that would really be the answer.

You take one of those limited edition prints and do a high quality scan and you now have the digital file again for all intents and purposes. Not ethical, but possible, right?
 
While I appreciate that thought, I wonder if even that would really be the answer.

You take one of those limited edition prints and do a high quality scan and you now have the digital file again for all intents and purposes. Not ethical, but possible, right?

Yes, but one could do the same with a Monet...
 
Hmmmmm....

Maybe if the artist took the photo, manipulated it, printed it and then enhanced it (with markers, paint, leaf, whatever) on the paper image then it could be called an original?

Maybe?

Interesting topic.
 
Well, it would be an original in terms of her medium. The intent is to be a static image; a computer screen is not.



I don't know how many people will argue semantics over a piece that they would like to own. Or is that the question? Does the potential client ONLY want originals in their truest form?
 
Over time the definition of, "original" may alter or a subset like, "digital multimedia original" may form. The digital original could become an evolving project or a group artist activity with endless mutated varieties of, "originals." We have just begun this discussion.

We have not had a tool so ready at hand for creating art like this in the past. The current discomfort will vanish with the next generation born with computers and digital printing. It is just another tool in the end. Just because it comes out of a computer there is a stigma attached for many today. Was it a discussion on the invention of photo lithography?
 
It's an interesting question. With digital work, limitless perfect copies can be made in digital form. Hard copies can be printed or reprinted on demand.

This largely obsoletes the value of an original. With a painting, there is only one made. Anything else has to be a copy or reproduction. So, an original has a distinct value. Digital work removes that limitation.

I imagine that photography has had to deal with this before. Given negatives, you can make more than one print. Printing is an integral part of the creation of the art, so you might argue that the negative isn't a finished original. That would leave the print as the first finished work, much like a digital print.

That's not to say that people won't value limited edition prints, or prints by the artist themselves.
 
I think the analogy of photography to digital printing is a pretty good one.

If a photographer prints one print and then destroys the negative then I would consider that one print an original. If there is a limited series of prints made and then the negative is destroyed, I would consider that a limited edition.

Likewise with digital art if the file is destroyed after printing.

It is true that any image can be digitally scanned and reproduced and there is a gray area there. However, if I had an original photo or digital print in my collection I would not allow the image to be scanned.

Having the artist sign an original (or sign and number a limited edition) would also offer protection.
 
Just a few comments:

Film based photography required a print, more highly valued if made by the photographer. The print varied over time, see Saint Ansel, and how his prints evolved.

Now, with digital, it is the same; software evolves, so the "artist" looks at his digital files, and improves them, and makes prints that are different, from his first set. Printing technologies change, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. And anyone with a serious interest in the interaction of the file from camera, software to process, and printer/ paper, knows that controlling all the variables will not guarantee duplicate prints if one of the little variables has changed. Upgrade your computer software, your prints might change, indeed, probably will, and you might never be able to get back to where you were.

I value things as follows:
a. A piece done by hand where there is no ability to produce an exact replica, other than making a copy of the original, which would be "a copy".
b. A print, either etching, engraving serigraph, etc. etc. including photos from a wet darkroom, and digital prints, done by the artist. The quanity produced isn't that important, as if the artist did it, they are limited. They are called prints, for a reason. Prints.
c. Copies made by craftspeople other than the artist, and we're not even going to mention the way sculpture has been done. That is where there is a lot of gray areas. Phew!
d. Photo-mechanical copies made on printing presses, signed and numbered, and as about as far from the hand of the artist as can be, unless they actually signed it. Maybe?

And, I'm just as confused as when I started blathering ... :D
 
Ansel Adams Gallery sells prints made from his negatives, as an ongoing venture; they are, relative to prints made by him, inexpensive. I'm not bothered, mainly in that the family benefits from his art. There are no residuals in the art world.

So, the destruction of an original negative or digital file, in the interest of some kind of exclusivity ... I don't know ... but an object at the hand of the artist should be the most important. ...

I'm still ... ... ... ...
 
Love ya', Buddy Bron. You are one wonderful addition to this forum.

Kind of a Baer in sheep's clothing.
 
Back
Top