Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II  (Read 100786 times)
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6554



WWW
« Reply #80 on: February 14, 2013, 08:12:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Hey Ray, there's hardly a single piece of flat art -- current or ancient -- that can't be reproduced almost exactly with advanced giclee techniques. If the producers of those art works were willing to make giclee copies, everybody'd be able to have the visual equivalent of the original Mona Lisa hanging on their walls. It's all about marketing and it's all about investment and it's all about being able to show both your friends and the great unwashed that you have big bucks. Yes, those folks in the ten percent were honest. There may be some among the ninety percent who also appreciate the art for its own sake, but they'd be able to have the same art for a lot less money if it weren't for the "art market" structure.
Logged

kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #81 on: February 14, 2013, 02:59:03 PM »
ReplyReply

....there's hardly a single piece of flat art -- current or ancient -- that can't be reproduced almost exactly with advanced giclee techniques...
Mmm. Giclee, as I understand it, is just a fancy word for inkjet. I would appreciate some documentation (I will also have a look myself). It would have to be a pretty advanced technique, to reproduce the kind of texture you get from the thick application of the paint in many oil paintings. It would also have to be pretty advanced to reproduce the reflectivity of other kinds of paint - eg acrylic. I guess you did say "flat" and "almost exactly", and you might add that the texture of the paint is only part of the story and that composition, iconography and narrative come across just fine. But your claim still seems a bit of a stretch to me, probably based on a lifetime's experience of being almost shocked by the difference when I do get to see the originals of works I have previously seen only in reproduction.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6554



WWW
« Reply #82 on: February 14, 2013, 03:12:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Ken, At the moment I don't have time to dig deeper, but go to http://www.breathingcolor.com/page/giclee-canvas-art-giclee-canvas and check the first paragraph. This reference is pretty superficial, but if you want to dig deeper you'll find that there are giclee techniques that almost exactly reproduce brushstrokes, etc. Let's face it, nowadays with 3d printing we can produce practically anything.

A lot of photographers call their inkjet prints made with pigmented inks "giclee," but real giclee goes way beyond that.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8292



WWW
« Reply #83 on: February 14, 2013, 07:00:17 PM »
ReplyReply

"In a new report entitled “Profit or Pleasure? Exploring the Motivations Behind Treasure Trends”, only a tenth of those questioned said they bought art purely as an investment, whereas 75% cited enjoyment as the key. The study is based on interviews with 2,000 rich people in 17 countries."
Another interpretation could be that the 75% were honestly admitting that they get a great deal of enjoyment --- out of making profit!
(The quote doesn't specify what kind of enjoyment they were citing.)  Wink
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8944


« Reply #84 on: February 14, 2013, 07:03:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Ken, At the moment I don't have time to dig deeper, but go to http://www.breathingcolor.com/page/giclee-canvas-art-giclee-canvas and check the first paragraph. This reference is pretty superficial, but if you want to dig deeper you'll find that there are giclee techniques that almost exactly reproduce brushstrokes, etc. Let's face it, nowadays with 3d printing we can produce practically anything.

A lot of photographers call their inkjet prints made with pigmented inks "giclee," but real giclee goes way beyond that.

As I understand, Russ, in order to reproduce the physical 3-dimensionality of subtle layers of oil paint on a canvas, one would need to use the very elaborate processes of the new 3D printing techniques which seem to be mainly used, currently, to reproduce or make molds of 3-dimensional objects like sculptures, teapots, vases and dolls, or thermoplastic molds for manufacturing processes.

It's not clear to me whether the current 3D technology is up to the job of creating the very precise 3D mold of the surface of an oil or acrylic painting, and then transferring the precise shade of color onto each tiny and subtle brush stroke.

The following links show examples of the new 3D technology used for art reproductions. In the case of the reproduction of the Altarpiece of Guimerà, a huge 15th century master piece of a Catalan Gothic painting in Spain, which I assume because it's so huge has a relatively coarse texture, the 3D mold is created first, then a standard inkjet printer is used to print the colors onto a special type of flexible and elastic material called Papelgel which is subsequently applied or glued to the uneven surface of the mold, with great precision.

http://www.guimera.info/avui/Retaule/article.pdf

http://hyperallergic.com/44764/alfred-steiner-erased-schulnik-diptych/

But let's assume that such 3D printing technology will eventually develop, if it hasn't already, to the point where it's possible to reproduce the 3-dimensionality of the most subtle of brush strokes and apply the correct shade of color precisely to each individual brush stroke. Is this any different in concept to what has always been possible with the reproduction of photographic prints?

Even if a photographer claims to have destroyed the negative, or deleted the original RAW or Tiff file so that no more prints can be made, thus hoping to increase the value of the single, or the very few prints he has made, we all know how relatively easy it is to make a high-resolution scan of a flat print, if it's small enough, or in the case of Gursky's Rhine II, photograph the photograph with a high-resolution camera, employing stitching processes if necessary.

This is a point I made on the previous page, which I thought hadn't been addressed and which I repeat below.

"Another issue is the reproducibility of the Rhine II print. A photograph of a painting is still a photograph and the differences between the two can be easily discerned. But a photograph of a photograph can be visually indistinguishable from the original, without forensic testing."

Even if one can discern some subtle differences, using a magnifying glass, it may not be clear which is the original and which is the copy. When people own a valuable diamond they will often have a copy made which looks identical to the original to all but expert jewellers with magnifying glasses. The copy is worn by the lady of the house on special occasions, but the original is kept in the safe and no-one is the wiser.

However, forensic testing, and/or Carbon-14 dating in the case of old paintings, will usually reveal the original.

Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8944


« Reply #85 on: February 14, 2013, 07:17:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Another interpretation could be that the 75% were honestly admitting that they get a great deal of enjoyment --- out of making profit!
(The quote doesn't specify what kind of enjoyment they were citing.)  Wink

Not necessarily, Eric. In order to make a profit, one has to not only buy, but also later sell. If you read the artricle, you'll come across the following comments.

Quote
If buying is generally pleasurable, selling is mostly not.

Quote
“When I don't buy anything, the fair feels dull. Buying makes you feel connected to what is going on.”

Buying art doesn't just offer a sense of community, it engenders feelings of victory, cultural superiority and social distinction. Some say that it even fills a spiritual void. The term most commonly used by collectors, however, is that buying art gives them a “high”. 

Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8292



WWW
« Reply #86 on: February 14, 2013, 10:34:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Not necessarily, Eric. In order to make a profit, one has to not only buy, but also later sell. If you read the artricle, you'll come across the following comments.
 

Ray,

I'll readily admit that I haven't read the article, only the brief initial quote. But the additional quotes you cite still don't give any information about whether the pleasure in buying is in any way related to the esthetic value of the object bought, or simply in anticpation of selling for a profit.

Lots of people buy things thinking they are going to make a bundle when they sell, but then find themselves selling for much less than they expected. Consider the recent housing market mess, for example. I don't see why the same can't happen when buyers overestimate the potential selling price of art that they buy.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6295


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #87 on: February 14, 2013, 11:34:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Why is it soooo difficult for some of you to accept that there are people who actually like the Rhein II (I do)?

You seem to go to great lengths looking for any other explanation, mostly cynical (investment) or derogatory (stupid rich). Some of you are patronizingly concerned with the longevity or reproducibility of the said piece. The people who pay 4+ millions for a photograph do not have net worth of 5 million, but more likely in the range of 50 to 500 million. If they bought it as an investment, then will sell it in a couple of years, so longevity does not matter to them. If they bought it for enjoyment, they do not care if it is going to fade after they are dead. We live in a throw-away era. We throw away our digital cameras after just a couple of years. Electronics is the new paper handkerchief. So is art produced by that electronics.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
SunnyUK
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2013, 05:58:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Why is it soooo difficult for some of you to accept that there are people who actually like the Rhein II (I do)?

Fair point. I know I'm amongst the cynics who want to lambast people for paying THAT much money for THAT picture. But you're right, it's really their money and their taste, and I'm definitely not the right person to judge them for that.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8944


« Reply #89 on: February 17, 2013, 07:11:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Here's my Volga II, if anyone's interested. I can print this 12ft wide or longer, and the price will be significantly less than $4.7 million.  Grin
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8292



WWW
« Reply #90 on: February 17, 2013, 08:54:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe if you clone out the clouds and the islands in the river, you could get a better price for it.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6554



WWW
« Reply #91 on: February 17, 2013, 12:52:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Eric's right, and you also need a completely blank, paved path in the foreground. That'll get the price up by at least 500 grand.

If Gursky's reading this stuff I'm sure he's laughing all the way over to the bank to check his balance.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8292



WWW
« Reply #92 on: February 17, 2013, 02:32:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe I'll steal this image, make my adjustments as well as Russ's suggested improvements, and then claim it as my own with a price tag of $5.7 million!
Or will I have to go to $6.7 million to get a buyer?

Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8944


« Reply #93 on: February 17, 2013, 06:29:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe if you clone out the clouds and the islands in the river, you could get a better price for it.


BuT I like the islands and the clouds, and I prefer the expanse of rippled water in the foreground to a concrete path.  Grin
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6554



WWW
« Reply #94 on: February 17, 2013, 06:47:53 PM »
ReplyReply

TS my son. You just don't understand the "art market." It's got to be boring to sell at those prices.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8292



WWW
« Reply #95 on: February 17, 2013, 07:54:57 PM »
ReplyReply

TS my son. You just don't understand the "art market." It's got to be boring to sell at those prices.
+17.5.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8944


« Reply #96 on: February 17, 2013, 09:32:31 PM »
ReplyReply

+17.5.



Eric,
How did you work out that my Volga II, when the full image is printed to reveal the detail one sees in the small portion viewed at 100% on an HD monitor, will result in a print which is 17.5ft wide?  Grin
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8292



WWW
« Reply #97 on: February 17, 2013, 11:12:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Obviously I just viewed it full-screen on my 17.5' HD monitor.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8944


« Reply #98 on: February 18, 2013, 06:42:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Obviously I just viewed it full-screen on my 17.5' HD monitor.


But you viewed a downsized image of a random size. Isn't that a coincidence!  Grin

Good shot of the monitor lizard, but I would prefer to see the whole of the two lizards.  Smiley
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8292



WWW
« Reply #99 on: February 18, 2013, 08:15:29 AM »
ReplyReply

But you viewed a downsized image of a random size. Isn't that a coincidence!  Grin

Good shot of the monitor lizard, but I would prefer to see the whole of the two lizards.  Smiley
But the second one wasn't HD.  Roll Eyes
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad