Replicating Masterpieces: Fake or Cultural Preservation?

Replies to This Post

Permalink Reply by Revelation on April 9, 2010 at 2:47pm

At least honesty is part of the process in Egypt. In America, namely Philadelphia, the Liberty Bell is a replica of the original which cracked and broke many, many years ago. Most people do not know that and think they are looking at the original. The plaque about the Liberty Bell does not reveal that fact which I feel is deceptive, almost shocking. Regarding the artwork in Egypt, I feel in order to preserve the original that replica's are acceptable. It is no different than preserving the life of a human being who does not have the immune system to fight diseases "we" give them. Once that person is exposed enough, an opportunistic disease will end their life. It is far better to preserve a life than take it and in art, I feel it is far better to preserve the original than destroy it.
I would be happy to have the opportunity to see the replica with today's technology as it is most likely such a good representation that even scholars have a hard time seeing the differences between them. Artist everyday create prints of their work in order to preserve the original. Some artist want to keep their originals, some want to pass them on to their families, some want to sell them at higher prices. I do not like the idea that someone other than the artist replicates an artists' work for profit though, e.g,. a man in Baltimore had famous black and white photos of actors made into posters and swiped colors into them. He sold them as his own art with no mention of the photographer. It was that photographer's work which made the photo famous to begin with.
As fast as the world spins today, we do not know what is real and what is not anymore. Giclee offers machine made brush strokes which mimic the original strokes and texture offering the audience a "real" experience. We do not even know if "new" found works credited to "old masters" are real or not. We are vulnerable to science and what it claims because they are respected as the ultimate surveyor's of technology. If they say it is Da Vinci, than it is. I do not "embrace" replicas nor originals, I admire the work and study the techniques used to create it. I respect the honesty of this specific preservation effort because once it is gone, it is gone and turns to dust. I would be happy to go to Egypt and see something as it was originally displayed than a weather work that was difficult to see at all. I think it is a good project, thinking ahead and preserving for the future.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Jacobson on April 9, 2010 at 9:34pm

Hi Nico,
your question is a good one. i don't like the idea that a museum, for instance, would have a Vermeer or a DaVinci duplicated by technology, then exhibit the duplicate as the real thing. that would be heart-breaking. but on the other hand, many artists used to learn how to paint by going into museums and making copies of the masters. i've made about a dozen copies myself, and have learned so much by doing so. but i'd never in my wildest dreams try to pass one of my copies off as an original!! so it's a difficult question. copying or "duplicating" has been part of traditional training for about 550 years! but duplicating through technology - - - eeccchhh...! part of the mystery is that the artist's "soul" or consciousness somehow gets into all those layers of paint, all those strokes of the chisel on marble or stone. without a living artist behind the work, what good is it? as Lou Reed once said, "not much at all." your friend, mark jacobson

• ▶ Reply