|
Post by bobthecat on May 16, 2009 11:23:38 GMT
Whats the definition of a GD original? Is a prep drawing a bona fide OG in the context of work or does it have to be an oil piece. What i mean is that the finished item is what would be considered a true original. I hope you see what I'm trying to understand. BTC
|
|
|
Post by redfred on May 16, 2009 12:07:10 GMT
I have always taken it as being "the only one" irrespective of the medium used. I have one oil on canvas which is the only one and classed as "original" on theCOA and an oil and conte piece of which there is only one and classed as original on the COA. To me a "prep drawing" although it could be argued is an original because it is unique is of considerably less value than the final finished article irrespective of the medium used. I can appreciate your confusion because the more you think about it the less clear it becomes with regard to "prep drawings".The only thing I am sure about is that an original doesnt have to be oil on canvas.
|
|
|
Post by northernmonkey on May 16, 2009 13:25:47 GMT
The definition of an original is that it is an original piece of work.... doesn't matter if its oil, conte, pencil, biro, charcoal, etching and whether its a final piece or a prep drawing.... there are originals and reproductions.... a prep drawing isn't a repro is it, its unique and is the only piece in existence like it.
|
|
|
Post by redfred on May 16, 2009 14:41:34 GMT
Totaly agree Northern, I could get my crayons out and put a cross on a bit of paper and it would be an "original", totally worthless but nevertheless an original. To my way of thinking a prep-drawing although I agree it is an original, will never be as desirable as the finished article, if I owned a prep drawing it would irk me that somewhere out there was the finished article which I would class as the "True Original". To take the debate one step further, some artists will release a print run and do a bit of hand finishing on a small number of them, hike the price up and claim they are originals. To my way of thinking these are not originals although they are unique! The only original is the one the initial print run is taken from. From that analogy I think I am saying that the "true" definition is not as cut and dried as we may think.
|
|
|
Post by Standard Daz on May 16, 2009 17:18:07 GMT
Also agree with NM -- here's my tired ramble....
Personally I'm leaning towards more of the conte/oil pieces on paper that Guy has been producing and much prefer the conte/oil prep original that I have over the oil painting on canvas with the same title (avatar). Although there are a number of his canvas pieces that I would love to own (Lilith, HH, quite a long list really). I would love to see more smaller originals, be them on canvas or any other medium, not only for cost but also so that I can squeeze more on my walls.
We nearly purchased another huge paper piece at the recent Signal show only to be beaten to it whilst we were umming and rrrrr'ing, which certainly wasn't cheap, and there were canvas pieces that we could of purchased but they just didn't appeal. There is one paper piece currently on RP that I just wish I had the money for - imo it's a cracker, an untitled original.
When you add the cost of conservation framing with museum glass you are often exceeding what a canvas would cost (which is what were debating at the recent show) but imo if you like the piece then just buy it, regardless of whether it was painted, drawn or a bit of both they are all original works of art. A canvas may have more work put into it but this really doesn't make it any more desirable than a conte on paper, well not for me, as it's not what degree of work has gone into the piece, rather more how the art works with me. (does that make sense?) It all comes down to how much I like the piece and sometimes I look at a painting and think it's not as attractive as a lighter piece, perhaps on paper, however I tend to like art with a lot of contrast, lilith for an example.
Anything that isn't a printed reproduction is an original. A print with hand finishing is still a print (imo). However, there is nothing wrong with prints, we got one of Guys and spent a small fortune (enough to buy an small o/g drawing) just on the framing, because we liked it that much. It now takes centre stage in our room and my only problem now is if I ever buy a large original canvas then it will have to go, or a bigger house, which is unlikely for some time!
|
|
|
Post by redfred on May 16, 2009 19:09:08 GMT
Although agreeing, I think the original question with regard to prep drawings is been skirted around. My view of a prep drawing is that Yes it is an ORIGINAL but it is a preliminary sketch of "THE ORIGINAL". An artist could make countless preliminary drawings until he is happy but there is only one "ORIGINAL" and that is the final piece that he is happy with. Or are we saying there are half a dozen Mona Lisa's kicking about?
|
|
|
Post by bobthecat on May 16, 2009 19:34:07 GMT
To have on tap the depth and breath of all you guys experience knowledge/ fair comments and honesty is in my opinion what these types of forums are all about, it assists readers member's guests etc to see what we are all about. Thank you all
Respect BTC
|
|
|
Post by misteraitch on May 17, 2009 10:53:12 GMT
o⋅rig⋅i⋅nal – adjective
1. created, undertaken, or presented for the first time 2. being something from which a copy, a translation, or the like is made:
- noun
1. a primary form or type from which varieties are derived. 2. an original work, writing, or the like, as opposed to any copy or imitation
(Dons the Devils Advocate titfer once again) So with that in mind then surely the very first prep drawing is the original and the oil is a copy of the original sketch?
;D ;D ;D
Aitch
|
|
|
Post by bobthecat on May 17, 2009 11:00:15 GMT
Bloody great BTC
|
|
|
Post by redfred on May 17, 2009 11:50:47 GMT
Methinks Aitch is trying to lead us into "chicken and egg" scenario! If that is correct it will turn the art world on it's head, what the hell have you started BTC. Somebody better tell Guy to treble the price of prep drawings and halve the cost of canvases, where will it end?
|
|
|
Post by bobthecat on May 17, 2009 13:31:10 GMT
You know you all love it and by the way its going we all own massively expensive collections and i just had a thought signatures are not all the same so, that therefore by definition makes a signed print original?? Oh hell what next BTC ;D
|
|