Is the visual component of an image the only criteria we use when wishing to display it on the walls of our homes? Appreciation can be found in both original and reproductive artworks, but without necessarily sharing the same motivation.
When examining why we choose to buy an original artwork or a reproduction, affordability is in favour of the reproduction and many on modest incomes will have no choice. There is a selection of reproductive artworks to admire and purchase, so we can enjoy the image for the image sake, if that is the reason we buy artworks.
However, we may buy artworks for decorative purposes, whose main function is to conform to the furnishing elements of a room. So the image and subject matter are less important and its only purpose is to support the overall design of its habitat. So we can generally identify this style of purchasing as decorative buying. It may be suited to the fashionable changing of decorative elements of the home and reproductive artworks can be cheaply replaced. Subject matter is subjective. However, abstract paintings are popular in both the home, hotel and office, as their lack of a definitive subject mean they can more easily blend into the overall interior location, with the bonus that they rarely cause offence.
So what is the benefit of buying an original piece of art? Buying original artworks can still be a decorative venture, especially if one is trying to effect a particular stylistic look. However, choosing an original artwork is usually imbued with an emphatic liking of the image and material ownership and recognising and wanting the physical association with the artist is another.
Will the purchase of an original painting have no or very little resonance with its habitat for the buyer? Or is it to be enjoyed solely for its artistic merit and the narrative it might stimulate by its triangular journey - artist - artwork - viewer? It's not a throwaway like a poster, but is customarily cherished for its tangible artistic quality alongside a sense of value for the fee one may have paid for it
If we dismiss the lunacy of the international art trade and its foolish prices, is the extra we pay for an original artwork worth it. If we see artworks only as a decorative element of our homes, then probably not, because affordable reproductions are easily purchased for this purpose. If we would like to buy original artworks but are unable to afford it, then reproductions will fill a visual need. However, there is a probability that we will be removed from the intentions of the artist, the authentic colour, texture, technique, density and the machinations of a life the artwork may or will have had; these things reproductions will likely lack.
In our very visual world images are ubiquitous and the advent of AI will it make more so. However, in the future AI may also offer inexpensive one-off ‘original’ imagery. At present, reproductive aspects of commercial images mean that wherever we go we will see similar imagery everywhere. The most popular is what sells and that will be the predominant imagery available. Artists, by virtue of the hands-on aspect of an original one-off work connect tangibly with the viewer. Perhaps the value of an original artwork is the personal connection with the artist through the physical pleasure of ownership.
An essay by Nicholas Robertson 5.3.26
Painting: Original and reproduction ▪ essay
