New Original Fine Art Prints
rega...@yahoo.com
artist, take a look at the following link to 4CORNERSFINEART.
Bill
your mind here. If it's an original it's not a print. And if it's a
print its not an original.
Have a nice day
Peter H.M. Brooks
paper. If you put it into an electron microscope and used the resulting
scan you'd have an original image from every single stamp, even two
printed next to each other. So, you could argue that prints are
original, just as stamps are.
--
Politics are not an instrument for effecting social change; they are
the art of making the inevitable appear to be a matter of wise human
choice. -Quentin Crisp, 'Resident Alien'
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Bill
you adopt two middle initials to add weight and substance to your
remarks. The purpose of calling a print an original is to obscure
the fact that it was NOT painted by the person who painted the first
one.
Have a nice day HM.
Peter H.M. Brooks
However, it is still true that there is a sense in which every print is,
like every stamp, original. Actually, they are more so. Every print has
a unique number - so print 10/500000 is utterly different from print
10000/500000 because they have different numbers. In other words, each
print is original.
If you take a photograph or otherwise copy print 10/500000, then you no
longer have an original in this sense (though you may have an original
photograph, of course), but a copy of a particular original print - that
is, as you point out, a copy of the original painting itself.
So, if you wish to be clear (and those, as you point out, who are being
unclear for fraudulent reasons don't), then you can say 'the original
painting itself' an 'original numbered print of the original painting
itself' or 'a copy of the original numbered print of the original painting'.
--
Secretly I have always held the opinion that it would be less depressing
to be alcoholic than to be anonymous- Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
sir_haxalot
masking how far removed the given object is from an original. I saw a
Kinkade 2006 calendar next to tons of other calendars in the store, and
his has a bunch of marketing on the front, regarding inclusion of a
hand-numbered certificate of authenticity. Meanwhile, it came off of
the same press as all the other calendars in there. It's plain enough
looking at the publisher and other info in tiny print on the back, but
based on what it says on the front, the calendar is "special" somehow.
This practice is at best misleading, and at worst false advertising or
even intent to defraud.
Peter H.M. Brooks
However, it is also worth considering what the value of an original
original really is. For example, if I had N million pounds to spend, I'd
rather spend a few thousand of it having van Gogh's 'cornfield' painting
re-done about 20% bigger by one of those copy artists than ever try to
buy the original - the original is, in my opinion, too small. So a
cheaper copy, thousands of times cheaper, is, in my aesthetic judgement,
a better value than the original.
Of course, if you're going to be a vulgar as to worry about re-sale
value then it all changes - the art itself doesn't matter a shit, just
the market. You might as well buy and sell bog-roll futures.
--
"But God doesn't exist"
"Let's hope so, Let's hope so" - dialogue from Le Fate ignoranti
Bill
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:dpjlhs$m96$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Quite, it is indeed wicked, no doubt about that.
I might not use the word wicked but I wouldn't argue against it. If you
use it with tongue in cheek then please take it out. Wicked is a valid term
for people who try ( for commercial advantage) to confuse the issue
concerning the origin of a work of art. A practice that is rampant in the
art world today. There is NO reason for calling an original work of art a
print and so no one does it. There are several reasons for calling a
print an original and ALL of them are BAD reasons. And if YOU are doing it
and trying here to justify it, may I urge you to stop ?
> However, it is still true that there is a sense in which every print is,
> like every stamp, original.
No there is NOT.
Actually, they are more so. Every print has a unique number -
so print 10/500000 is utterly different from print
> 10000/500000 because they have different numbers. In other words, each
> print is original.
Horse hockey.
> If you take a photograph or otherwise copy print 10/500000, then you no
> longer have an original in this sense (though you may have an original
> photograph, of course), but a copy of a particular original print - that
> is, as you point out, a copy of the original painting itself.
Horse hockey. (And bad english also.)
> So, if you wish to be clear (and those, as you point out, who are being
> unclear for fraudulent reasons don't), then you can say 'the original
> painting itself' an 'original numbered print of the original painting
> itself' or 'a copy of the original numbered print of the original
painting'.
I don't know everything and certainly not everything about art. But I know
a lot about the English language. Could you please translate the above into
English for us, Pete. Think subject, predicate and object. Right now
it's meaningless drivel.
Have a nice day. bill
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> news:dpjlhs$m96$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
>
Sorry you didn't understand it. A more careful reading will probably
give you what you want.
--
"Aye, of that Chingis was it said that while he carpeted all Asia
with bones, yet might a virgin with a bag of gold walk the length of his
dominions without harm, so perfect was his governance" - George
MacDonald Fraser, 'The Candlemass Road'
rega...@yahoo.com
bit clearer, and I apologize if I was not. These prints have never
appeared on the market before. Nor are they reprints of some long dead
painter's unsigned work that is now being recycled and sold. They are
original in the sense that they are the work of the person who will
actually sign each of them with her own hand. I have to say as well
that I think the use of the word "defraud" in this context is rather,
well, inappropriate. I realize you were referring to Kincaid, but the
association seems unwarranted. Also, I surely don't have to point out
that some of the greatest painters of the 19th and 20th centuries
created and sold prints? I hope I have cleared up any
mis-understandings I may have created.
Bill
I knew if I waited long enough I'd find something we
can agree on.
Have a nice day.
Bill
> Bill wrote:
> > "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:dpjlhs$m96$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > Think [of/about?] subject, predicate and object.
> >
> Sorry you didn't understand it. A more careful reading will probably
> give you what you want.
>
meaningless drivel, HM. Again I urge you to construct english sentences
built around a subject, a predicate and an object. No one is fooled by your
verbiage into thinking a stamp is not printed, but is instead an original
work of art. Nor believes that something churned out like confetti has the
right to be called an ORIGINAL anything. and putting a number on it
doesn't change that. Unless the person who signs something is selling his
autograph.
Have a nice day, HM, and work on your language skills.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
> No one is fooled by your verbiage into thinking a stamp is not printed, but is instead an original
> work of art. Nor believes that something churned out like confetti has the
> right to be called an ORIGINAL anything. and putting a number on it
> doesn't change that.
>
that it was fairly simple, but there we are.
Try to avoid the capital letters, it makes you appear a nutter.
Remember that printing can produce originals, you may not have heard of
woodcuts or etchings, but they are printed. So it is not the printing
that renders stamps unoriginal. Each stamp is also, as I've pointed out,
actually unique, so it isn't the uniqueness that is vital to originality.
No matter, though, if you find your head hurts, thinking about this,
just relax. Your view of originality is perfectly fine for your uses -
there is no need for you to worry about the philosophical issue,
particularly if you find it difficult!
--
All persons are deemed to have a _right_ to equality of treatment,
except when some recognised social expediency requires the reverse. And
hence all social inequalities which have ceased to be considered
expedient, assume the character not of simple inexpediency, but of
injustice, and appear so tyrannical, that people are apt to wonder how
they ever could have been tolerated; forgetful that they themselves
perhaps tolerate other inequalities under an equally mistaken notion of
expediency, the correction of which would make that which they approve
seem quite as monstrous as what they have at last learnt to condemn. The
entire history of social improvement has been a series of transitions,
by which one custom or institution after another, from being a supposed
primary necessity of social existence, has passed into the rank of an
universally stigmatized injustice and tyranny. So it has been with the
distinctions of slaves and freemen, nobles and serfs, patricians and
plebeians; and so it will be, and in part already is, with the
aristocracies of colour, race, and sex. -- J.S.Mill Chapter V.
Utilitarianism
Erik A. Mattila
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> news:dpjvss$1p5$2...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>>"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
>>>news:dpjlhs$m96$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>>>
>>> Think [of/about?] subject, predicate and object.
>>>
>>
>>Sorry you didn't understand it. A more careful reading will probably
>>give you what you want.
>>
>
> A more careful reading simply confirmed what I already knew. It's
> meaningless drivel, HM. Again I urge you to construct english sentences
> built around a subject, a predicate and an object. No one is fooled by your
> verbiage into thinking a stamp is not printed, but is instead an original
> work of art. Nor believes that something churned out like confetti has the
> right to be called an ORIGINAL anything. and putting a number on it
> doesn't change that. Unless the person who signs something is selling his
> autograph.
>
> Have a nice day, HM, and work on your language skills.
>
>
themselves. For example, don't you think "No one is fooled into
thinking a stamp is not printed and is an original work of art by your
verbiage" is a better sentence?
"Nor believes that..." - ? Doesn't that belong to the previous
sentence? Here's a challenge for you: find a sentence that begins with
"Nor" in literature.
"and putting a number on it...." Funny way to build a sentence, doncha
think? How about this: "Putting a number on it doesn't change that
unless the person who signs something is selling his autograph."
Sorry kid...Peter His Majesty Brooks gets a gold star, and you've earned
a black one.