Hirschhorn Museum Field Trip
by Eric J. Woody
The third work of art I chose is from artist Claes Oldenburg who wrote "Iam for all art that takes its form from the lines of life itself." He created this work 7-Up made in 1961 which was made of papiermache. He wanted to show his work as a slick piece of commercial design into a lumpy, paint-dripped object, simultaneously equating the sale of art with everyday retail. I saw it as a representation of American culture which we see in television commercials everyday. It is an Icon of advertising which has been around for decades. We as americans love our soft drinks and 7-Up has been as popular as many others like Coke, Pepsi, DR. Pepper.
What other works of art or TV shows/films or advertisements do these inner images remind you of?
I think these art works remind me of everyday life, and show how art imitates life in the way we create art.How do these inner images get borrowed back-and-forth? We usually repeat things we see that are successful in advertisement, TV shows, film, and things in nature.Does this change the Art-ness of these images? I think everyone has their own interpretation of what is art and how they want to create art and what messages they want people to see in their art.If Art is defined as any form of media, which makes you, think in a new way, how did your three selected works challenge you to think differently? How art they Art? I think that the works of Art i wrote about were interesting, and got me to look at art with more understanding of even though I am not a fan of art. The works of art i looked at are art because these are the interpretations of life that the artist want to project to the audience and these are there creations from their unique ideas.
What books and gifts can be purchased at the gift shop? What does this say about the works of art in the Museum? Art books and art gifts are the main attractions of the Hirschhorn Museum gift shop and this shows that the works of art are the main focus of the museum. Who decides what goes into this art museum? Why did they get this privilege? Who paid for the Museum Who paid for the special exhibit. Joseph H. Hirshhorn
The Hirshhorn Museum’s founding donor, Joseph H. Hirshhorn (1899–1981), immigrated to New York from Latvia when he was eight years old. His widowed mother settled with her children (Joseph was the twelfth of thirteen) in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn.
In time, Joseph Hirshhorn would become a financier, philanthropist, and well-known collector of modern art whose gift to the nation of nearly 6,000 paintings, sculptures, drawings, and mixed media pieces established his namesake museum on the National Mall. The Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden has been open to the public since October 4, 1974. The Board of Trustees get the privilege of picking the art which goes into the Hirschhorn Museum. The Smithsonian paid for the building of the Hirschhorn Museum in honor of the philanthropist and art. What should have been in this museum, but wasn't? What should have been in the gift shop but wasn't? Why do you think these were left out? I think picasso should have been in this museum but wasn't because his abstract art fits the modern art theme of the museum. I didn't see a lot of standard Smithsonian gifts which show the Museum and the Smithsonian logo. These gifts were left out because the museum wants people to absorb the atmosphere of the modern art exhibits not the standard brand gifts which are in the rest of the Smithsonian Museums.How is the value of the artworks in this museum determined? What makes one piece of artwork more valuable then the others? In a world where artworks can be reproduced (like the books and posters in the gift shop)- how does this change the original work of art? Why is a reproduction worth less money than an original Can you describe a type of artwork which doesn't have an original?
What Determines the Commercial Value of Art?
Like currency, the commercial value of art is based on collective intentionality. There is no intrinsic, objective value (no more than that of a hundred-dollar bill). Human stipulation and declaration create and sustain the commercial value. Reproductions mimic the original artwork but try to enhance the original works value by making it a brand
The reason that many people continue to be astonished or enraged when they hear that a particular work of art has been sold for a large sum of money is that they believe art serves no necessary function. It is neither utilitarian, nor does it seem to be linked to any essential activity. You cannot live in it, drive it, eat, drink, or wear it. Even Plato considered the value of art to be dubious because it was mimesis, an imitation of reality.
.Reproductions mimic the original artwork but try to enhance the original works value by making it a brand which will be recognized with a larger audience.
What is the difference between an original artwork and a reproduction of it?
7 Answers
When an artist creates a unique artwork, that is an original. That original may be a painting of some kind, or a sculpture, or a performance work, or one of many other kinds of media. It seems that the types of original media proliferate daily. However, if the artist makes it with his/her own hands OR under his/her supervision (Jeff Koons has a huge workshop with lots of "helpers" as does the glassmaker Dale Chihuly - and so did many of the Renaissance artists), then it is an original.
With printmaking, there is a lot more confusion in the artworld, and in fact, Bernd's answer needs a bit of clarification. When an artist does original printmaking, they make a printing plate from which an edition is printed. The plate does NOT copy a work of art that was originally produced in some other medium (an oil painting, acryclic, etc.). It is a unique work, created solely as a print. The pieces of the edition are signed and numbered by the artist. (note: There are also "monoprints", which are one of a kind prints that an artist makes - each one a unique piece - these are just like originals, except they are made by a printing process)
If the printing plate - these days plates can be made photographically - copies, or in other words, REPRODUCES an image that the artist originally made in some other medium, and then the works in the edition replicate THAT image, then even if the artist numbers and signs them and even if he or she makes some little extra unique squiggles on them with their own hand, and even if the gallery calls them "originals", they are stillreproductions. And what is really important to understand, is that they are of much less value that any kind of original created by the artist, no matter how they are hyped. This is the area where the greatest misinformation and flat out frauds in the art business have occurred.
To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with reproductions. They can be great, and serve an excellent purpose. I own reproductions of images I love, because I could never afford the originals. But the question is an important one, because it is critical to understand the difference, since the words "original" and "priint" are so frequently misused and misexplained, and substantial amounts of money can get caught up in the confusion.
With printmaking, there is a lot more confusion in the artworld, and in fact, Bernd's answer needs a bit of clarification. When an artist does original printmaking, they make a printing plate from which an edition is printed. The plate does NOT copy a work of art that was originally produced in some other medium (an oil painting, acryclic, etc.). It is a unique work, created solely as a print. The pieces of the edition are signed and numbered by the artist. (note: There are also "monoprints", which are one of a kind prints that an artist makes - each one a unique piece - these are just like originals, except they are made by a printing process)
If the printing plate - these days plates can be made photographically - copies, or in other words, REPRODUCES an image that the artist originally made in some other medium, and then the works in the edition replicate THAT image, then even if the artist numbers and signs them and even if he or she makes some little extra unique squiggles on them with their own hand, and even if the gallery calls them "originals", they are stillreproductions. And what is really important to understand, is that they are of much less value that any kind of original created by the artist, no matter how they are hyped. This is the area where the greatest misinformation and flat out frauds in the art business have occurred.
To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with reproductions. They can be great, and serve an excellent purpose. I own reproductions of images I love, because I could never afford the originals. But the question is an important one, because it is critical to understand the difference, since the words "original" and "priint" are so frequently misused and misexplained, and substantial amounts of money can get caught up in the confusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment