Print V/S Original

[Sora]

The market today is rife with copies and prints of every possible artwork that is ever made. The effortlessly accessible platforms provided by the internet further means that prints can often and easily be duplicated even without your knowledge. However, as a customer if you were to buy art online, would you prefer an original work for a few extra dollars or would you settle for a cheaper print? Contrarily, if you were the one selling, would sell original artwork or prints?

Given that I'm thinking of selling my accumulating artwork, I'm wondering which would be economically more viable as well as saleable?

 

[remnant]

I would prefer an original artwork for a few extra dollars. Artwork is measured by its intrinsic value. Authenticity and originality are cherished qualities. Handmade artwork attracts a premium value because of the skill, patience and effort put into it. Those prints duplicated online though attractive have no sentimental value.

 

[Federico.Gimeno]

I would prefer an original artwork for a few extra dollars. Artwork is measured by its intrinsic value. Authenticity and originality are cherished qualities. Handmade artwork attracts a premium value because of the skill, patience and effort put into it. Those prints duplicated online though attractive have no sentimental value.

This. And it would directly benefit the original artists/authors. It is hard work, and must be remunerated, specially if it is outstanding.

 

[thedude]

As a very frugal person I would prefer a copy. If I was a serious art collector I would probably want an original or a limited edition print. I'm so frugal that when I find art online that I like, I just print it at home and tape it to the wall. If I was well off financially I would buy from the artist, but I'm pretty poor.

 

[Nikita]

I think it just depends on the artwork. Some types lend themselves better to selling limited prints and some are meant to be distributed more widely through digital sharing. I think you just have to figure out what type of producer you want to become. Some cater to mass market while some prefer to do it more traditionally and just sell one or two at higher prices once in a while. I think the latter is much harder to accomplish because you need to become popular enough that people would be willing to pay more.

 

[Vinaya.Ghimire]

Prints are good those for those who want to collect the art but do not have funds. I am this kind of person. I love collecting arts however, I don't have money to buy artworks. How do I cater my needs, buy a print. Having said that owning an artwork is always better.

 

[Cleveland76]

I don't have any problem with selling or purchasing prints to be honest. Someone may want to decorate their home with various artworks but not want to be held responsible for owning the one single original copy of it, not to mention the expense of the work itself, as well as the expense of having it archivally framed to preserve it properly.

Plus, some forms of art, such as photography and lithography, by nature, allow for the artist to sell multiple prints from a piece, in a set of limited editions that they decide upon. So an artist might make a limited set of 100 prints of a lithograph they did, and sign and date them, along with the number print each one is out of the entire edition. That way multiple people can enjoy the work, and there isn't just one instance of it out in the public. Same goes for photographs.

 

[ReadmeByAmy]

I think it depends upon your buyer to which they would be best satisfied whether it is in its original form or just a print copy. But if I am a buyer of a certain artwork of course I want the original and authentic form because I will keep and treasure it for a lifetime.

 

[pwarbi]

If I was a buyer then that would ultimately depend on what I was buying the artwork for in the long run. If it was just for show, to make the walls of the house look nice then I'd be buying the copies.

On the other hand, if I saw the artwork as an investment that I would be wanting to sell on for a profit later on, then the original would be my best option.

 

[Corazon]

A family friend who is a writer was lamenting about the digital copying of artwork. He is a visual artist and he is afraid that his sketches and pencil drawings would be copied and even enhanced. Although that artist is not yet that popular, he is already making a name in the movie industry as a production designer so maybe in a few years he will also be popular in the visual arts.

The problem with the digitization of artwork is that someday people will never know if it is the original or duplicate. So when that happens, the original artwork will suffer in value.

 

[Pop]

If the original is only a few extra dollars then the artist is some unknown street corner doodler. I own a little original art, but on a small budget -- like the kind of budget that would otherwise get a gallery quality print -- you are going to get a minor local artist or some vintage kitsch. I reached a little deep to get a few artists I think might do well in the future. But getting an print of their work is maybe $500, getting the original even of these minor local artists -- but recognized fine artists -- is upwards of $4000. So almost an order or magnitude more. So how many of you who say you would get an original actually own one?