OA and heat 0

[delekkerste]

13 minutes ago, Weird Paper said:

I'm gonna play devil's advocate on this. I have some prints up, framed, in place of originals, and it doesn't bother me at all. I have the peace of mind to know they're not fading. I took 1200 dpi full-sized scans and printed them on similar-finish paper on a high-quality, eight-color Epson -- tears, tape, toning, warts and all. If you walked into the room, and didn't know some of them were prints, it would probably never occur to you. I can look at the originals any time I want, but I don't have to worry about any fading. It's a win-win. If there was some aspect to their presentation that screamed "copy," like a reduced size or pixellization, it wouldn't work. The thickness and some surface aspects of the paper are different, but it's not evident in a frame. Hell, I even got lazy on a few and printed the matte around it, complete with a bevel and faint shadow to make it look real.

Edited April 9, 2018 by delekkerste

[Weird Paper]

4 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

That's exactly what I mean. He didn't know until he knew. 

[delekkerste]

2 minutes ago, Weird Paper said:

That's exactly what I mean. He didn't know until he knew. 

Yeah, but, in this situation, the owners are Elaine and the outsiders looking at the displayed copies are Jerry! 

[Weird Paper]

7 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Yeah, but, in this situation, the owners are Elaine and the outsiders looking at the displayed copies are Jerry! 

Yeah, but she seems more amused by it than bothered by it. 

[Bronty]

1 hour ago, Weird Paper said:

I'm gonna play devil's advocate on this. I have some prints up, framed, in place of originals, and it doesn't bother me at all. I have the peace of mind to know they're not fading. I took 1200 dpi full-sized scans and printed them on similar-finish paper on a high-quality, eight-color Epson -- tears, tape, toning, warts and all. If you walked into the room, and didn't know some of them were prints, it would probably never occur to you. I can look at the originals any time I want, but I don't have to worry about any fading. It's a win-win. If there was some aspect to their presentation that screamed "copy," like a reduced size or pixellization, it wouldn't work. The thickness and some surface aspects of the paper are different, but it's not evident in a frame. Hell, I even got lazy on a few and printed the matte around it, complete with a bevel and faint shadow to make it look real.

If you ever decide to sell your furniture, please give me a call?   

[Weird Paper]

29 minutes ago, Bronty said:

If you ever decide to sell your furniture, please give me a call?   

My furniture?

[Bronty]

Just now, Weird Paper said:

My furniture?

Well its obviously in mint condition under that plastic  

[Bronty]

On 02/04/2018 at 6:34 PM, Bronty said:

Yeah.    Framing a copy is like the art collectors version of the couch that’s wrapped in plastic.    Sure, you’ve protected the couch (art) but you’ve lost all enjoyment of it in the process

 

[Weird Paper]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

 

Duh. I was looking at my post wondering where I mentioned furniture. The analogy falls flat, though, because I don't have a couch that's worth as much as the average piece of art on my walls (nor would I). I was just speaking for myself, saying that I'm not bothered by the fact that some of the pieces on display are visually-identical prints of art that I own. I like to be able to see them, but not have to worry about fading. Obviously, if I didn't own the originals also, I would not get the same satisfaction by having repros on my walls. But as it is, they are merely visual proxies. It makes sense for me. Your results may vary.

[malvin]

38 minutes ago, Weird Paper said:

Duh. I was looking at my post wondering where I mentioned furniture. The analogy falls flat, though, because I don't have a couch that's worth as much as the average piece of art on my walls (nor would I). I was just speaking for myself, saying that I'm not bothered by the fact that some of the pieces on display are visually-identical prints of art that I own. I like to be able to see them, but not have to worry about fading. Obviously, if I didn't own the originals also, I would not get the same satisfaction by having repros on my walls. But as it is, they are merely visual proxies. It makes sense for me. Your results may vary.

I'm ok with that too. One of my earliest best pieces was the first published Bisley Lobo piece that was likely marker.  CAF Link I initially had the original framed up but decided to replace it due to fear of fading.  Of course now that I don't have anything framed up, the framed copy is stored.

Malvin

[Bronty]

40 minutes ago, Weird Paper said:

Duh. I was looking at my post wondering where I mentioned furniture. The analogy falls flat, though, because I don't have a couch that's worth as much as the average piece of art on my walls (nor would I). I was just speaking for myself, saying that I'm not bothered by the fact that some of the pieces on display are visually-identical prints of art that I own. I like to be able to see them, but not have to worry about fading. Obviously, if I didn't own the originals also, I would not get the same satisfaction by having repros on my walls. But as it is, they are merely visual proxies. It makes sense for me. Your results may vary.

so, dibs on the loveseat?    

 

 

 

 

[MyNameIsLegion]

15 hours ago, Weird Paper said:

Duh. I was looking at my post wondering where I mentioned furniture. The analogy falls flat, though, because I don't have a couch that's worth as much as the average piece of art on my walls (nor would I). I was just speaking for myself, saying that I'm not bothered by the fact that some of the pieces on display are visually-identical prints of art that I own. I like to be able to see them, but not have to worry about fading. Obviously, if I didn't own the originals also, I would not get the same satisfaction by having repros on my walls. But as it is, they are merely visual proxies. It makes sense for me. Your results may vary.

I can attest to the fact that, having seen the originals when the were framed, and the scanned prints after the fact- that no one would know the difference.  I think for certain types of art, like markers or watercolors that it makes perfect sense.