Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile FurAffinity Previous Previous Next Next
Question about mediums - The art of Thornwolf — LiveJournal
Question about mediums
Okay, I've been thinking and I really want to get some input on this.

If you went to an art show would you be more inclined to buy an original in real media or a large one of a kind print of a digital piece. Either would be equally as good, but what do you prefer and /why/ did you choose that?

I personally think folks have more of a preference for real media because its something that is one of a kind that they can take home with them and keep, but on the otherhand a digital piece can /also/ be one of a kind, they could destroy the large file upon printing of one large mega print, so its not so much a level of rarity here. There's a lot more you can do visually with digital media, but real media is really awesome to see in person, the prints never usually do it justice. I can really see both sides of the argument.

What are your thoughts?
24 comments or Leave a comment
_graywolf_ From: _graywolf_ Date: October 19th, 2005 05:30 pm (UTC) (Link)
Both really.. For me it depends on how the image strikes me. If I like it I'm more tempted to get a print since it's a lot less stressing on the finance department ;) If it really gives my a chill or goosebumps and the original is available I'd be tempted to get the original..

it all depends on how the image hits me
nambroth From: nambroth Date: October 19th, 2005 05:36 pm (UTC) (Link)
I will agree with Graywolf here. :}
snowwolfmystic From: snowwolfmystic Date: October 19th, 2005 05:30 pm (UTC) (Link)
Real media. :) I can't quite say why, either... just tradition, the fact you can take home the exact materials the artist used and probably wouldn't be able to repeat in a different piece... and there's something unique about each traditional medium that separates it from others on a texture level as well.
arbeywolf From: arbeywolf Date: October 19th, 2005 05:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
I can see the rationale behind both but personally I would prefer the real media piece. I guess it just "feels" more like an original than something printed out, no matter how high quality or one of a kind in that size etc., it's still a print.
arbeywolf From: arbeywolf Date: October 19th, 2005 05:49 pm (UTC) (Link)
I should also say, something cool that I've seen done before (By Thomas Kincaide of all people) is that an artist will sell what is essentially a "print" of their work but then to make it more unique than every other print they will paint on the print to add highlights and shade areas to make it just look a bit more 3D like the actual paintings do.
Of course these sell for more than the print but way less than an original.
Might be an interesting "middle ground" to explore.
calicougar From: calicougar Date: October 19th, 2005 05:37 pm (UTC) (Link)
It has to be a really fan-friggin'-tastic piece of art for me to want a print over a piece of original art. Jen Seng's stuff comes to mind.

On the other hand I do buy a lot of prints for impulse art, like Michelle Light's stuff.
mshmsh From: mshmsh Date: October 19th, 2005 05:41 pm (UTC) (Link)
Traditional for me too D:
airukitsu From: airukitsu Date: October 19th, 2005 05:45 pm (UTC) (Link)
I like the original better because that is the real thing, straight from the artist. Its rare and cooool. :P But sadly my funds beg to differ and I settle with a print. :
From: kilojara Date: October 19th, 2005 05:48 pm (UTC) (Link)
Go with traditional. People like that. You might get a bite with oversize poster prints of digital works, but people REALLY like real media.
From: kcravenyote Date: October 19th, 2005 05:53 pm (UTC) (Link)
I generally prefer an original over a print. But I DO have a few prints, generally it depends with me. I find it more rare and one of a kind when it's the original unless it was a digital media piece.
wicked_sairah From: wicked_sairah Date: October 19th, 2005 06:07 pm (UTC) (Link)
An Original... I mean, there are some AWESOME digital prints in an art show. But I feel better spending my money on an original.
altonwings From: altonwings Date: October 19th, 2005 06:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
Real media means a lot more to me simply because a real pen/pencil/marker/crayon/paint is a direct extension of the artist and is less 'controlled' than digital media. It's that element that lacks precise control (or 'do-overs') that mean the artist must be much more precise, much more critical of themselves as they create their work.

It is that reason that real media means more to me, because the artist usually has only one shot depending on what they are doing, and as a result there is much more effort into a piece than on digital media.
visioncrafter From: visioncrafter Date: October 19th, 2005 06:26 pm (UTC) (Link)
I have to agree with the majority here... although there are some georgious and masterpiece quality digital pieces (heck I love working in digital myself) which I would more than happily get print prints of ~ at the moment I woudn't pay hundreds of dollars for a limited addition print of something I liked where as I might for an origional traditional media piece.
Do I think that atidude may change in the future? Perhaps, but for now I think the majority of people (just because that's the way art has been for so long) see having the real piece in their hands as the product not a reproduction even when the piece is digital.
Is that a good or bad/right or wrong thing? I'm not sure but in my mind I think that's where things stand for the most part... thought I may be wrong who knows!
draegonhawke From: draegonhawke Date: October 19th, 2005 06:39 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well, yeah, it'd depend on the image. But say if you had (we'll ignore the absurdity of this for the purposes of the example) the same piece in both real and digital media, the real pice just feels... more... real. There's more of a connection ot the artist, this especially in medias like paint on canvas where you'll be able to see the very texture of the materials. The digital piece will feel a step removed--since you have the artist doing work on the file, and then you have a printer as an intermediary. Even if it's a one-of-a-kind print, it just feels less special. ...which isn't quite the word I want to use as I have a number of prints and I love them dearly, but... you know.

It's the difference between "This is the actual lines the artist drew in actual pencil and the actual mark of the actual brush the artist held" rather than "this is a printout."

But, yes, quality of image trumps quality of media. So.
maggock From: maggock Date: October 19th, 2005 06:54 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well, that depends on a lot of things. If we're talking a real media piece and a print of that real media piece, I'd go for the real media version because hey, it has more collectibility value. If it's two totally different pieces and one is digitally painted, I don't so much care, I'm going to go for whichever piece I connect with the most. I would however expect the print to be cheaper since more can be made, unless it was truly a limited edition 1/1 run!
fernblossom From: fernblossom Date: October 19th, 2005 07:26 pm (UTC) (Link)
Take the middle ground-
do the majority digital, print on inkjet watercolor paper or something similar, and then paint/draw over that additional detail, shading, highlights. If you want to do something really large, take it to a place that can print on canvas, and then you can put it on stretchers like a 'real' painting!
featherlady_jt From: featherlady_jt Date: October 19th, 2005 07:28 pm (UTC) (Link)
It depends entirely upon the sort of venue/show. The ones I do, real media and photography are what move, hands-down. My personal preferences: original if I can swing it, but a remarque is also very nice and has a much higher value than an ordinary print. Limited edition prints I'll also collect, especially if I can get them signed. Digital images? Unless it's photography I have no interest in collecting those.
webgodd_s From: webgodd_s Date: October 19th, 2005 07:53 pm (UTC) (Link)
For me, media is irrelevent if I love the piece, and I can afford it. Most times I can't afford an original, so prints are the way to go.

But, if there were two pieces that I liked that were the same price (that I could afford) and one was an original and the other was a print, I'd go with the piece I liked more. Period. Media wouldn't matter.
kpquepasa From: kpquepasa Date: October 19th, 2005 09:03 pm (UTC) (Link)
From the artist's side of the table, I prefer selling digital. And here's my reasoning:
For a piece to be visually compelling enough for someone to want to buy it, that piece has really got to take a lot of your own emotions, sweat blood and tears. When I do real media pieces for the purpose of sale, I always feel kinda cheated that the person it goes to is one of the only people that I'll get to share that emotion with for the rest of eternity, and (this is kinda stupid but whatever) it never goes to the type of person I had envisioned as perfect for it... so I don't usually end up offering it up to the public that can spread my name and skills so much as selling them to friends where I know that they'll be well cared for.
With digital, you can make your art, and sell as many copies of the piece as you'd like, before you've shared enough of that particular time in your life and you can move on to your next piece. There's a bigger audience for it, and I can make sure to get it to both audiences- the ones I know will cherish it wholly, and the ones who will spread it around and send more people to me to see my pretties.
In short- I'm selfish but it works for me.
From: blueotter Date: October 19th, 2005 09:19 pm (UTC) (Link)
I only buy original real media pieces in art shows, ever.

Even if a digital print is marked 1 of 1, I just don't believe it won't turn up again somehow.

Call me paranoid!
loriana From: loriana Date: October 19th, 2005 10:05 pm (UTC) (Link)
Totally agree with your preconceived notion of what people want (and others above confirm): If I am looking for art, I would MUCH prefer original media primarily because of the uniqueness factor.

But the big problem ties in with your earlier post on cost effectiveness. Noone is made of cash...welll...at least I'm not- (I'm not even made of bad checks!)- At any rate, Commissioned work is something I'm finding myself more drawn to over time rather than 'off the shelf' work, too.

Uhh, its also why I really want to improve my artistic tallents (like I have some), that I may create the images I most desire to see, and rarely find satisfaction in buying from others (gah, i dont know how to say that- sounds harsher than I really mean)
wolflahti From: wolflahti Date: October 19th, 2005 11:38 pm (UTC) (Link)
Real media - no contest.
xxbalaaxx From: xxbalaaxx Date: October 20th, 2005 12:29 am (UTC) (Link)
I used to be heavily on the side of real media before I started doing digital work myself. I think to some extent yeah it is nice to have an original painted/color pencil/ what not piece but at the same time like you said, there are ways to make a 'digital original'. Another thought is when you sell the digital original attach the original sketch with it, number the print and make up a certificate of authenticity...that way you ensure that the picture that person receives IS a one of a kind..after all you cant readily duplicate the original sketch on which the digital piece was based. I used to just not value digital work myself because I thought so many digital artists relied heavily on filters...but now I respect digital work as much as real media..both require just as much skill and time and both can be made into prints(though with real media, as you said, prints never can duplicate the original).
panth From: panth Date: October 20th, 2005 08:12 am (UTC) (Link)
I'd have to say it depends on the image. No matter how real a real-media piece sometime is, if it doesn't have a certain quality, depth, emotion to it... meh. Same goes for digital media. So my vote is either, depending on the piece.
24 comments or Leave a comment