[another "post from the past" - my draft folder has reduced from 96 to 63; the rediscovery of former interests is interesting in itself...]
In a lecture in March that focused on various artists' series of prints, Paul Coldwell talked about what was an original work "something in the form the artist intended" - so a print (eg etching, screenprint) would be an original, even if it was a multiple, whereas a painting scanned in or photographed and reproduced isn't original.
 |
| Gelande III, 2010; woodcut, 21x26cm; image from here |
In answer to "why did
Christiane Baumgartner take digital pix and then laboriously translate them into hand-carved woodcuts" he said "there's something incredibly perverse about a lot of artists' practice, but it shows commitment to an idea, and the contrast [of "quick" digital and laborious handwork] makes focus" - for instance it might take months to travel to a place, to experience it for just a short time.
 |
| Allee II, 2008, woodcut 142 x 181 cm; image from here |
There's a long lead-up (making) to an intense experience (viewing).
Interesting (as are most of your posts). I have Paul Coldwell's book, and would love to hear him lecture.
ReplyDeleteThis business of what is original, and what is the artist's intention is a complex one. I very much admire what Christiane Baumgartner does - and am of course because of my own way of working interested in how the use of digital tools is regarded.
Reading your blog is an education in itself. Thank you.