Value of Original Art

I’m of the opinion the opinion the original masterpieces are irrationally valued over replicas. I watched a program on TV about how two paintings had been stolen and were effectively lost, and how this was an immense tragedy, but I’m wondering if it really is. If there are decent replicas of the artworks, then has anything of value been lost? The original mona lisa painting is probably waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more valuable than a pretty good replica, but my question is why…? Is this reason good enough to explain the difference in price between the original and the decent replica?

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: =D>

Hillarious asking what the difference between an original and copy is.

Don’t you know anything about authenticity? Don’t answer this; I already know your answer.

Kay, I won’t answer. Thanks for your contribution. It’s been invaluable to the topic of this thread.


Mhm, nothing different between one who makes money, innovates, and produces compared to a thief.

No difference whatsoever. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: =D>


Whatever, retard…if you want to get banned derailing this topic, I’ll consider this thread a success.

If you couldn’t tell the difference between a replica and the real thing, then why would it matter which one was hanging on your wall? My boss has a great Ocampo on the wall of her waiting room. I thought it was an original but turns out it’s a copy. All I care about is that I love looking at it now and then.

I’m not the one calling people names. You’ll get banned before I will.

You mean like this derailment???


You think you can derail my threads and get away with it??? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

More :laughing: are in store for you.

If you can break the rules of this website then so can I. In fact, I think I’ll report you for the “retard” comment, enjoy your suspension. :smiley:

Some people do not value originality.

Almost everybody else cannot even tell the difference. :smiley:

That’s what I’m thinking, too. The artist creates the form. The form itself is important and valuable, not the original disk it’s recorded in, or canvas it’s painted on. The original has some historical and technical importance, in that you can see the brush strokes and material it was made out of but there’s no way this makes its value 10000x more than a good replica.

What is form itself? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

It was in keeping with the spirit of the thread, and that was not lost on the non-retards. And if I get a warning for calling you a retard I’m letting it be known I’m done with this forum. I know I’m not a valuable member or w/e, but there’s no way I’m getting in trouble with the administration because of your dumb ass.


Now everybody, watch this and pay attention. I want everybody to see him not answer my question.

You said it yourself my buddy ol pal.

You’re a good friend. :smiley:

It means your question was detrimental to my point, and that I’m purposefully avoiding it because if I did address it I would lose the game. What now, bitch?! I used sarcasm to illustrate your napoleon complex. The crowd is turning on you. Your move.


I can imagine the fun of being an overly concerned hoitytoity purist about the value of the original, but then I don’t think I would appreciate never getting to see it because I couldn’t afford it. Maybe there’s something of the artist, the time, and the milieu left in an original that affects a sensitive viewer differently from a copy, but you can still get that experience at a museum I think.

Sure, maybe many of us would like to own nothing but great originals, but that is not going to happen for most of us, and certainly not for me I can say with categorical definiteness. And many of us cannot visit all the museums and see all of the originals we would like to see, so we are very pleased with good copies and prints, reproductions, and even illustrations in books and internet images. I guess I have managed to suppress my purist and classist sympathies enough to be able to enjoy and appreciate art wherever I can find it as needed. One of the best experiences I had was visiting the Kimbell and happening across the original of Goya’s Pedro Romero. That was a once in a lifetime serendipity; and then there was the Ocampo copy I mentioned, along with the Frida Kahlo wall hanging of her great self-portrait with the parrots, which reminded of the time I learned about ekphrasis at the Jung Center and ended up writing a poem in response to Kahlo’s Self-portrait with Unbound Hair from a postcard print. If I had been a purist, none of these things would have happened. And then, for my purist soul, just happening to run across an entire exhibit of the original Irving Norman oeuvre made my whole trip to Sacramento such a blessing one year. It’s all good, however art happens to capture your heart and soul and give you those amazing, eternal moments.

I told you he wouldn’t answer it.


I’m locking this thread for 72 hours.

You two (XZC & Debaitor) should try to play nice when I unlock it.

Either that, or I’ll give Debaitor a Warning (Second-24 Hour Ban) for thread derailment and will issue XZC his first Warning for ad hom.

Sorry, Jonquil, I can tell you put some effort into your response.