Quote:
Originally Posted by mhv  I don't think your definition is controversial. What is more important to consider is whether both possess the same artistic value.
That there is a monetary value difference between an original and a copy makes sense; that there is a different physical experience also. But I think it varies between artists whether the "original" and the "copy" have distinct artistic value.
For very dedicated printers, the original print(s) might be the only one who bear the artistic value because they depend on particular physical attributes. But for other artists, there are no significant differences between the artistic value of a "copy" versus that of an "original."
People acquire "originals" not only for artistic value, so personally I would consider myself well served by a URL of JBrunner's photos, although having the actual print might give me other related delights. |
Interesting question. I consider my originals to the important work. I don't think the scans I post to APUG have any special value because they're just intended to show people what the original would look like if they could see it.