Reproduction Businesses of Thomas Kinkade’s painting
When I read the article by Susan Orlean, I am very aware of the big business Thomas Kinkade is trying to create by reproducing his original paintings mechanically using digital technique, but I have also carefully examined whether this article which discusses about the reproduction of his art works has a correlation with Walter Benjamin’s essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”.
A certain emotion or an “aura” is said to be present when an artist creates an art work. However, some of the reproduction pieces inside Kinkade’s signature gallery are highlighted by his specially trained assistant; I believe these paintings are no longer evoking this so-called “aura” of the original work. Aura is something that cannot be duplicated. Reproductions of art pieces are simply tangible and concrete object. They are digital imitations that “could be soaked in water, peeled off the paper, and affixed to a stretched canvas, so that it showed the texture of the canvas the way a real painting would.” As Benjamin stated, “… the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” The original paintings have their own unique characters and history, and these are not the things that art reproductions can generate. "The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity."
To recreate an original masterpiece such as Kinkade’s “Julianne’s Cottage”, and to print it onto the canvas takes away its original beauty and changes it into an everyday, insignificant object. Although highlights of the paintings are done to entails stippling paint dots to give an image “more texture and luminescence”, but Glenda, one of the highlighter mentioned in the article would even allow customers to perform the highlights themselves, these reproductions are no longer authentic, it is the unique involvement that is counted significant by the public to make the painting “truly one-of-a-kind”. Kinkade’s business world is marketing businesses with the recreations of his art paintings that can provide continuing supplies “in the pursuit of gain” discussed by Benjamin. In my opinion, the digital reproductions of Kinkade’s art works are not intended for political or even social action, but for economic action.
The sensation of “absent-minded” is also apparent when the customers at Kinkade’s signature gallery are trying to engage themselves in the art world of Kinkade’s paintings.
My second gallery review is on the work of Philip Denker. I analyzed the art work at his exhibit; OVER + UNDER”. I saw his exhibit Friday November 15, 2013 at 11:00 am at Trifecta gallery inside the arts factory. When I walked into the room I loved that the room was illuminated with the light of the light bulbs, as well, with the natural illumination of the sun coming through the glass windows and door. When I got inside the room I also noticed it was spacious, and the pieces were very well ordered. The pieces were hung vertically or horizontally, and I liked this because it got my attention.
The earliest forms of art had made it’s mark in history for being an influential and unique representation of various cultures and religions as well as playing a fundamental role in society. However, with the new era of postmodernism, art slowly deviated away from both the religious context it was originally created in, and apart from serving as a ritual function. Walter Benjamin, a German literary critic and philosopher during the 1900’s, strongly believed that the mass production of pieces has freed art from the boundaries of tradition, “For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependance on ritual” (Benjamin 1992). This particular excerpt has a direct correlation with the work of Andy Warhol, specifically “Silver Liz as Cleopatra.” Andy Warhol’s rendition of Elizabeth Taylor are prime examples of the shift in art history that Benjamin refers to as the value of this particular piece is based upon its mass production, and appropriation of iconic images and people.
Though people can look into color and composition, others can still even look into the source of the art itself. Cole goes deeper, delving into the source of the art, looking in particular into the idea of cultural appropriation and the view a person can give others. Though it is good for people to be exposed to different opinions of a group or an object, sometimes people can find it difficult to tell the difference between the reality and the art itself. Sometimes art can be so powerful that its message stays and impacts its audience to the point where the viewer’s image of the subject of the art changes entirely. Cole brings up an important question about art, however. Art has become some kind of media for spreading awareness and even wisdom at times, but in reality, “there is also the question of what the photograph is for, what role it plays within the economic circulation of images” (973). Cole might even be implying that Nussbaum’s advertisement can sometimes be the point of some media, and that sometimes the different genres of art can just be to make someone with a particular interest happy. One more point that Cole makes is that “[a]rt is always difficult, but it is especially difficult when it comes to telling other people’s stories.” (974) Truthfully, awareness and other like-concepts are difficult to keep going when a person or a group is not directly involved.
According to Tocqueville in aristocratic times the purpose of creating the arts was to produce the best artwork spending a great amount of time on it perfecting it and selling it for a high price. However, in today’s society the way to get rich is to sell your artwork for a cheaper price by manufacturing more quantity but with cheaper materials less in value, reproducing the artwork quicker and cheaper. Today all ranks of people can afford to buy a replicated artwork, which can easily be mistaken for the real thing. They are so highly perfected it is hard to tell apart what is original and what is not. They are many artistes today however; the quality of the production has
Artists are masters of manipulation. They create unimaginably realistic works of art by using tools, be it a paintbrush or a chisel as vehicles for their imagination to convey certain emotions or thoughts. Olympia, by Manet and Bierstadt’s Sierra Nevada Mountains both are mid nineteenth century paintings that provide the viewer with different levels of domain over the subject.
Though most works of art have some underlying, deeper meaning attached to them, our first impression of their significance comes through our initial visual interpretation. When we first view a painting or a statue or other piece of art, we notice first the visual details – its size, its medium, its color, and its condition, for example – before we begin to ponder its greater significance. Indeed, these visual clues are just as important as any other interpretation or meaning of a work, for they allow us to understand just what that deeper meaning is. The expression on a statue’s face tells us the emotion and message that the artist is trying to convey. Its color, too, can provide clues: darker or lighter colors can play a role in how we judge a piece of art. The type of lines used in a piece can send different messages. A sculpture, for example, may have been carved with hard, rough lines or it may have been carved with smoother, more flowing lines that portray a kind of gentleness.
Benjamin does not really find the work of art lamentable, but rather elevated. Replicating an art substitutes a mass existence for a distinctive existence, hence, the reproduction of art, once permitted, brings art closer to the masses (Benjamin 1054). As time gradually changes from its traditional past, to the present “renewal of humanity” (1054), so does the perception of the masses and its movement. I would argue that the development of technological reproduct...
The article Artists Mythologies and Media Genius, Madness and Art History (1980) by Griselda Pollock is a forty page essay where Pollock (1980), argues and explains her views on the crucial question, "how art history works" (Pollock, 1980, p.57). She emphasizes that there should be changes to the practice of art history and uses Van Gogh as a major example in her study. Her thesis is to prove that the meaning behind artworks should not be restricted only to the artist who creates it, but also to realize what kind of economical, financial, social situation the artist may have been in to influence the subject that is used. (Pollock, 1980, pg. 57) She explains her views through this thesis and further develops this idea by engaging in scholarly debates with art historians and researcher, and objecting to how they claim there is a general state of how art is read. She structures her paragraphs in ways that allows her to present different kinds of evidences from a variety sources while using a formal yet persuasive tone of voice to get her point across to the reader.
Mark Rothko is recognized as one of the greatest artists of the twentieth century and during his lifetime was touted as a leading figure in postwar American painting. He is one of the outstanding figures of Abstract Expressionism and one of the creators of Color Field Painting. As a result of his contribution of great talent and the ability to deliver exceptional works on canvas one of his final projects, the Rothko Chapel offered to him by Houston philanthropists John and Dominique de Menil, would ultimately anchor his name in the art world and in history. Without any one of the three, the man, the work on canvas, or the dream, the Rothko Chapel would never have been able to exist for the conceptualization of the artist, the creations on canvas and the architectural dynamics are what make the Rothko Chapel a product of brilliance.
1. Hunter, Sam and Jacobs, John. Modern Art, 3rd Edition. The Vendome Press, New York, 1992.
From the creation of art to its modern understanding, artists have strived to perform and perfect a photo realistic painting with the use of complex lines, blend of colors, and captivating subjects. This is not the case anymore due to the invention of the camera in 1827, since it will always be the ultimate form of realism. Due to this, artists had the opportunities to branch away from the classical formation of realism, and venture into new forms such as what is known today as modern art. In the examination of two well known artists, Pablo Picasso and Jackson Pollock, we can see that the artist doesn’t only intend for the painting to be just a painting, but more of a form of telling a scene through challenging thoughts, and expressing of the artists emotion in their creation.
As I enter the Gioconda and Joseph King Gallery at the Norton Museum of Art the first thing that Caught my attention was a painting measuring approximately at 4 ft. by 10 ft. on the side wall in a well- light area. As I further examine the painting the first thing I notice is that it has super realism. It also has color, texture, implied space, stopped time, and that it is a representational piece. The foreign man sitting on the chair next to a bed has a disturbed look on his face and is deep into his own thoughts. It’s as if someone he loved dearly just experienced a tragic and untimely death. He is in early depression. I could feel the pain depicted in his eyes. A book titled The Unquiet Grave lying open on the floor by the unmade bed suggesting something is left unresolved. The scattered photos and papers by the bedside cause redintegration. The picture of Medusa’s head screaming on the headboard is a silent scream filled with anger and pain, yet it cannot be heard. I feel as if I am in the one sitting in the chair and I can feel the anger, and regret.
When I imagine an artist, I picture a Parisian dabbing at a sprawling masterpiece between drags on a cigarette seated in an extravagantly long holder. He stands amid a motley sea of color, great splashes of vermillion and ultramarine and yellow ochre hiding the tarp on the studio floor. Somehow, not one lonely drop of paint adorns his Italian leather shoes with their pointed toes like baguettes.
In Confronting Images, Didi-Huberman considers disadvantages he sees in the academic approach of art history, and offers an alternative method for engaging art. His approach concentrates on that which is ‘visual’ long before coming to conclusive knowledge. Drawing support from the field of psycho analytics (Lacan, Freud, and Kant and Panofsky), Didi-Huberman argues that viewers connect with art through what he might describe as an instance of receptivity, as opposed to a linear, step-by-step analytical process. He underscores the perceptive mode of engaging the imagery of a painting or other work of art, which he argues comes before any rational ‘knowing’, thinking, or discerning. In other words, Didi-Huberman believes one’s mind ‘sees’ well before realizing and processing the object being looked at, let alone before understanding it. Well before the observer can gain any useful insights by scrutinizing and decoding what she sees, she is absorbed by the work of art in an irrational and unpredictable way. What Didi-Huberman is s...
AA theory by Clive Bell suggests the pinpoints the exact characteristic which makes a work true art. According to Bell, an artwork must produce “aesthetic emotion” (365). This aesthetic emotion is drawn from the form and formality of an artwork rather than whether or not it is aesthetically pleasing or how well it imitates what it is trying to depict. The relation of objects to each other, the colors used, and the qualities of the lines are seemingly more important than what emotion or idea the artwork is trying to provoke. Regardless of whether or not the artwork is a true imitation of certain emotions, ideals, or images, it cannot be true art unless it conjures this aesthetic emotion related to formality (367).