To print or not to print
Recently, I got into a conversation on Twitter about copyright law and what artists can do when their intellectual property is misused. While the discussion revolved around the question of why artists are so often promised exposure if they work for free and how inadequate that system is, I found myself parsing the issue and making exceptions. Although I am adamant that artists should be paid for their work, I realized that I don’t include reproductions in my definition of an artist’s work.
To my mind, reproductions are for free and for exposure, and originals are for money and for the full value. Trying to get people to pay for reproductions devalues originals and cuts off a useful promotional tool. I believe that the original is my only real product and I act accordingly by driving sales to my paintings.
a reproduction with the original, Mother
This is a matter of believing whole-heartedly in free culture and of participating in it* as well as partaking from it. But it’s also about protecting my originals. If I asked people to pay for reproductions of my work, I would be implying that they are worth it even though, in reality, the best reproductions can’t compare to my originals. So, while I believe in using reproductions to get my work seen by as many people as possible, they are not an end, only a means.
Apple Pie, the book
All that said, I have published an exhibition catalog which is for sale. I sell reproductions of my work in this format because an exhibition catalog adds value to my oeuvre in a way that individual prints cannot. The image quality in the book is very similar to that of my free cards, but, presented in the context of the full series and with the added weight of a catalog essay, the reproductions become more than just knock-offs of my originals. The catalog is a critical addition to my résumé and one that has changed the way that potential venues and clients view my work.
Then again, when I really think about it like this, it becomes clear to me that I would give the books away for free too if I could afford to shoulder all of the printing costs and the writer’s fee!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
*Online, my reproductions are free also. By that I mean that I do not mar the reproductions and photos that I post with a watermark. As a result, my images are traceable only by their distinctive style. I don’t try to force people to credit me if they steal my images, but I do hope they’ll have the decency to do so. This is a risk I’m willing to take because my style is unique and consistent, but also because I believe that my originals are more valuable than any reproduction.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Changing ideas about copyright
- John T Unger says “DEFEND ART.”
- Free culture
CATÉGORIES: - Business of art - Free culture -
(4) Comments / Commentaires: To print or not to print
Hi Kate,
Art is special and reproductions are not. I love that I live in an age when I can see images of works that I can’t meet in person, but that doesn’t make me see the reproductions themselves as anything more than useful. I discard prints easily because they lack specialness, and I’d rather that reproductions of my work weren’t discarded that way.
In order to avoid this, I try to make my prints special. I do this by publishing them in catalogs with interesting commentary, but also by making prints into gifts.
When someone is interested in one of my paintings, it’s for one of two reasons: either they have a connection to the subject or they feel a connection to the piece itself. When someone wants a print because they know the sitter, it feels wrong to charge them for the affection that they have for that person. When they want a print because they simply love the work, I would rather make their day than make a few bucks.
Call it vanity or stupidity, but I am flattered by a stranger’s love of what I do, and I want to make the prints special to them. If they expected me to give them a print because it was common for artists to do that, then my action wouldn’t have any specialness. As it is, my action is out of the ordinary, and it helps me to form relationships with people who like my art.
I know that making good reproductions of art can be difficult and costly, so I understand why artists charge for the energy that goes into making a print. I’m not saying that my way is for everyone: I’m saying that the way I do it is an option, and, contrary to popular belief, it’s a smart option!
Hi Gwenn,
First of all, I love your portrait style, and I love that you can’t explain exactly how it works either - I tend to think the most important parts of a piece of art can’t really be explained. And I agree with a lot of what you have to say about copyright.
But I’m having trouble translating these ideas into my own medium. I am a writer, and I can’t quite figure out, in my case, the difference between an “original” and a “reproduction.” I suppose an original could be a physical book, and a reproduction a photocopy, but that doesn’t work the same way, since books are always made into so many copies! Does that mean that for a writer, an “original” has less value than for a painter? Or do the books themselves only constitute reproductions, and an “original” would be the author reading the work aloud (a practice usually free of charge)? If that were the case, the original would be free and the reproductions charged, which is the opposite of your philosophy.
Do you have any thoughts about this? I find your philosophy very appealing, but it doesn’t quite seem to have an equivalent for written works.
Regards,
James
Hi James,
I’ve thought about this quite a bit and I still don’t have a good answer. The closest I come to one is not an option for most artists. It’s a form of what Radiohead did in 2007: use a pay-what-you-will model for digital versions of the writing and sell hard copies for a premium to devoted fans. Of course, Radiohead can get away with that because they have an established market. I’m not sure if I would be willing to try out this idea if I were a writer without a comparable fan base!
I don’t think that writing is lesser than other arts because it doesn’t have an “original” in the same sense as other arts do. Film doesn’t have an “original” either (unless you count seeing a work on the big screen as an “original” experience), and that industry is making complaints similar to the music industry’s as digital versions of films become easier to pirate.
I guess all this comes to nothing practical for you, but it is something I am very interested in and continue to think about a lot. If you come up with more thoughts on the subject, I’d love to hear them!
Kate...
Gwenn,
--- -- - --- - ---- - - --- ----- -- -I’ve been reading some of your thoughts on copyright, originality, etc. and I think you’ve got some really good points. I agree that certain forms of art should be free. I also agree that quality (originals vs. prints) should determine value in art. However, I wonder why you think that selling prints of your work would devalue your originals or cut off their use as promotional tools. It seems to me that artists get along just fine by selling prints of their work for much less than what they charge for originals, and that buyers understand the difference in quality, value, and price. Also, if an artist sells prints, he or she can still use them as free promotional tools - by making them smaller, or of a lesser quality than the prints for sale. I’m curious to know why you’re opposed to this approach.