Will Original Works of Art and the Art Market Survive the Age of Reproductions, or will the Differences be too Minuscule to Catch?

As apps and information technology continue to grow and improve upon themselves in this digital age, the questions and worry of how reproductions could be taking the place of original works and how it would affect the art market grows with it. 

By: Margaret Moncrief and William Moore, Sept. 27, 2020

Art Has Always Been Reproducible

With the increase in technology and thus the growing of possible forgeries and reproductions going unnoticed, we tend to forget that art reproductions have been seen and recorded from up to more than 2,000 years ago, and were even a common practice up until the 16th century (Dolice, 1). In “The Work of Art in the Age of Technological Reproducibility [First Version]” By Walter Benjamin and Michael W. Jennings, the two authors had this to say about art reproductions.

“Replicas were made by pupils in practicing for their craft, by masters in disseminating their works, and, finally, by third parties in pursuit of profit. But the technological reproduction of artworks is something new. Having appeared intermittently in history, at widely spaced intervals, it is now being adopted with ever-increasing intensity”

To clarify, not all reproductions are made with the intention to fool the viewers and make some money, aka forgeries. Art reproduction can also mean students trying to create the same work of art from an old master to learn the techniques used to create the piece. From the ancient Greeks taking from and reproducing Roman sculptures to past and current day students replicating the art of old masters, art has seemingly been reproducible from the very start. 

(Left) John Myatt’s Self-Portrait 1925/1928, (Right) Vincent van Gogh’s Self-Portrait 1889

What Separates Original Works From Reproductions?

“For, although technology may make possible the production of copies of paintings that are in all aspects indistinguishable from the original, to speak of one painting being a copy and another the original still makes sense” - George Sipos, pg. 108

As methods have evolved to make it more and more difficult to tell the differences between an original piece and it’s reproduction, there are still ways that we can identify the art from the farce. Most works of art, especially famous works, are accompanied by the unique penmanship of the artists’ signature that is usually found near the corners of the canvas. While some reproductions are able to pull off the same style of the signature that, to the naked eye, is believable, others are debunked immediately.

Another way a work of art can be identified to be the true piece is where the art was found or originated and the history behind it. If the work of art is found where the alleged artist resided, it is more likely that that painting or work is the original than the piece found in an area that has little relevance to the artist. In the case where it seems indeterminable as to which art is the original, stated by Anthony Ralls in his writing,“The Uniqueness and Reproducibility of a Work of Art: A Critique of Goodman's Theory”, “nevertheless, they are aesthetically different because, in brief, knowledge of their provenance tells us that there may be a perceptible difference between them, which we should now be trying to learn to perceive; and thus our present experience of the two pictures is differentiated” (Ralls 2).

(Left) Johannes Vermeer Girl with a Pearl Earring 1665, (Right) John Myatt Girl with a Pearl Earring 2012

Though art has always been reproducible through the use of a keen eye, steady hands and access to relevant materials; art is now easier to reproduce now more than ever. Many “1 of 1” contemporary artists use contemporary tools in the creation of their art, it is no different for those wishing to mass produce art. The internet age has presented humanity with seemingly infinite data about every known phenomenon. This increase of knowledge in quantity, breadth and depth has shifted the ability of humans to create and/or mass-produce art.

“An important thing to ask about, Mr. MacLellan says, is an artwork’s rarity—is it a one-of-a-kind piece, a limited edition, or are there many copies of it on the market or already sold? And if it’s limited or unique, how is it protected from replication or piracy? As in the market for traditional art, rarity generally makes a digital work more valuable.” (Weil 2019, par. 14)

Digital artwork currently has an inherent problem when it comes to marketing: how does one determine the value of a digital piece? Digital art faces a similar dilemma as street-art. Without actual materials, reliable provenance or an appropriate means of extracting the piece, you are only left with an image. 

Famous street artists are often barraged by forgeries. This happens so often that many famous street artists have created regulatory bodies whose sole purpose is to find suspected pieces on the market and investigate their authenticity (Pest Control, 2018, par. 2).

Digital art is even more difficult to verify than street art is. Street art can be verified with the help of a “pseudo-provenance” using information based on a piece’s original physical location. Digital art does not have a physical location, it exists somewhere in the infinite ethers of the digital world.

However, there is a new line of thinking emerging in the art world which aims to use reproducibility as a benefit rather than a detriment. This idea has formed around the technologies of 3D printing and 3D scanning.

3D printing has become more relevant as a way of replicating 3D artwork. The British Museum of Art has begun to look into the manufacturing process as a way of creating merchandise based around their work.

“Many have questioned the worth of these 3D models – what value do they add? My answer is that they are a natural extension of museum object documentation. There is a clear progression from line drawing to photography, and now to 3D representations which can be audio described, annotated, reused and embedded. There is also the potential for them to be monetised, which could potentially create a valuable income stream to fund some of the Museum’s work.”
(Pett and Shore 2017, par. 3)

Though the museum is currently looking into ways to monetize digital copies of their work, they’ve also shared their 3D scans of their world famous sculptures on open source websites.

“The platform and the service were developed around the principles of open science and with the core vision of offering a cheap and quick method for anyone to replicate its works” (Pett and Shore 2017, par. 4).

Reproducibility has always been a polarizing topic in the art world, and with the development of technology and its disruptive nature: I am certain reproducibility will become even more polarizing.

Sources:

Sipos, George. “On the Reproduction of Works of Art.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 32, no. 1, 1973, pp. 107–108. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/428709. Accessed 27 Sept. 2020.

Ralls, Anthony. “The Uniqueness and Reproducibility of a Work of Art: A Critique of Goodman's Theory.” The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), vol. 22, no. 86, 1972, pp. 1–18. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2218587. Accessed 27 Sept. 2020.

BENJAMIN, WALTER, and MICHAEL W. JENNINGS. “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility [First Version].” Grey Room, no. 39, 2010, pp. 11–38. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27809424. Accessed 27 Sept. 2020.

Dolice, J. L. (2003). A History of Art Forgery. Retrieved September 27, 2020, from http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/forgery/history/ 

 Dan Weil. 2019. The Digital Art Market heats Up. Wall Street Journal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-digital-art-market-heats-up-11553479261

 Pest Control. 2018. What is Pest Control.  
https://www.pestcontroloffice.com/whatispco.html

Daniel Pett and Andrew Shore. 2017. A New Dimension in Home Shopping

https://blog.britishmuseum.org/a-new-dimension-in-home-shopping/