I often find myself debating the credibility of an artist that makes cheap reproductions of their own work. The best kind of art is always an original, while a print is just a cheap alternative that could not be nearly as good, right? Well, yes, original artwork is worth much more, but it does not change the meaning of the work. I am coming to understand that the value of art does not stop at the monetary value, nor does the monetary value absolutely determine the significance of a piece to its audience.
Of course, we often correlate importance with monetary value. The Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci, for instance, is worth upwards of $100 million. It is one of the most expensive singular works of art ever, and so people see it as a significant work of art. That is not to say that it is not significant, and in fact it reached this point because of its significance. It is one of the extremely few paintings made by da Vinci. He was a true Renaissance man, working as an engineer, an inventor, and most notably a drawer. He has hundreds upon hundreds of drawings in the reddish-brown, perfectly proportioned style that is so easily recognized as his. But he is known for his mysterious painting of an androgynous figure. Most likely it is because it is so rare of a thing to find, but maybe it is because no one could figure out if the figure was smiling or not.
Now, why do I bring up the Mona Lisa? Clearly if I were to make a painting that had that much meaning and mystery behind it, I would be set for life. But it is impossible for me to do so because I was not born 500 years ago and I am, for all intents and purposes, unknown to the art world at the moment. There is still much to learn from the famous painting though. It is bought and sold every day, though not for millions of dollars. Instead, it is reproduced in mass onto coffee mugs, posters, and bookmarks to be sold for as cheap as a single dollar. Anyone in the world can own a Mona Lisa of their own, no matter their social standing. This got me to thinking about the way art has been historically consumed.
During the Renaissance, the people to view and commission art were mainly wealthy bankers, like the Medici family in Italy. Later in France came the Academic Salons, which were still mainly for the wealthy, but allowed artists to show their art among other popular and skilled artists. Today we call those juried art shows. To get to the point, for most of art history, art was for the rich. It was not until recently that museums were opened to the public and education on the subject was promoted. That said, the Mona Lisa is an astounding jump in terms of universal knowledge. Taking an image that was likely only seen by a select few people throughout its existence and allowing the world to own it for themselves truly opens up the possibilities of education. There was a lot of money to be made from the decision to reproduce the image of Mona Lisa, but people were willing to pay it to support art and to own a part of something that they may not be able to see in person.
One of my favorite artists is Shephard Fairey. He is another great example in favor of image reproduction. For a time, I thought of Fairey as a sellout. He started off as this punk street artist that was just trying to get a message across, just trying to get his name out there. And once he did, he started making T-shirts, limited prints, and other merchandise. I saw this as a cash grab. He couldn’t just continue to be this rebel spraying stencils across blank city walls, he had to get something extra from it. I don’t know why I saw this as greed, but I did. I thought artists had to be struggling constantly to be heard or even to survive, but we live in a different world now. People enjoy seeing art and they enjoy supporting it. Art is no longer just for the wealthy to enjoy, everyone can participate.
Reproducing the work that was originally created in a different medium does not lessen the value of the original work. It doesn’t make the artist a sellout to want to survive off of what they love, in fact I think it makes them even more of an artist. I love to support other artists, and I personally cannot afford a large painting. So I support in a smaller way, buying small sketches, stickers, jewelry or any other affordable products that other artists produce. I thought I needed to create great original work and live off of that like some sort of jackpot when it sells, but I see now that that can be hard to sustain.
It fills me with joy to know that people want to help support my art. I am now producing prints of my large paintings from the Disease series so that people who were interested before can have a piece of my work without needing to break the bank. To everyone who is supporting me by purchasing one of these prints or even simply sending words of encouragement, thank you.