Original Art or Prints?

If you can't find a sub-forum that matches the subject of your question post it here.
Locked
Customer
Advanced Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Nov 3, 2007 9:23 pm

Original Art or Prints?

Post by Customer » Apr 19, 2011 2:04 pm

Hi Gary,

Are your works advertised originals or multiple prints.
Is Reaping the Millet still available?
Cheers,
John

User avatar
Gary
The Boss
Posts: 6091
Joined: Oct 30, 2007 11:30 pm
Location: San Diego / Beijing

Post by Gary » Apr 19, 2011 2:05 pm

Hello John,

That's a question which involves the definition of "original" artwork versus how the term is perceived by some people.

All of our folk art (and 95% of our other artwork) is hand painted by the original artist. It fits the definition of original art because it's not mechanically-reproduced, and was painted by the hand of the artist himself (not by a student of the artist etc).

Some people think that "original" means "one-of-a-kind".
Here's the definition: http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/Or.html#anchor1714039

In most cases the folk art we sell is done in an open series. The artist comes up with an attractive composition, and if it's popular, he paints more of them as needed. In the case of this folk art, they are often done in batches of a dozen or so. This is usually a full day of work for the artist.

This "Reaping the Millet" artwork is not one-of-a-kind, but it is original artwork, and is true folk art, as the artist was not classically-trained in an art academy, etc.

You'll notice subtle differences between the paintings here:
http://www.orientaloutpost.com/search.php?q=millet
These two paintings were actually painted a year or two apart. One is dominated by more yellow than the other, but otherwise, they are similar.

They are both available for sale as of my writing of this post.

Cheers,
-Gary.

Locked