Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
The Coins of Benvenuto Cellini (not ancient, but...)
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="ycon, post: 2973528, member: 91771"]Thank you for all the kind words everyone! </p><p><br /></p><p>[USER=82322]@Ed Snible[/USER] love that funny medal have you seen this one? <a href="https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=221520" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=221520" rel="nofollow">https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=221520</a></p><p><br /></p><p>[USER=19463]@dougsmit[/USER] I don't want to turn this thread into an argument about copyright, but here are a couple articles on the topic </p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-paintings-copyright_b_1867076.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-paintings-copyright_b_1867076.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-paintings-copyright_b_1867076.html</a></p><p><a href="https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/museums-right-to-charge-image-fees-is-called-into-question" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/museums-right-to-charge-image-fees-is-called-into-question" rel="nofollow">https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/museums-right-to-charge-image-fees-is-called-into-question</a> </p><p><br /></p><p>In general, old artworks are out of copyright. A new creative act has to be done, modifying the original, in order for that to generate a new copyright. The question, then, is whether or not taking a photograph of an artwork counts as a new creative act. Many museums--in a large part so that they can generate reproduction fees-- have argued that it does, however most courts in the US and England have not agreed. </p><p><br /></p><p>As for what you say about originals, I think your points are slightly muddled (I come to numismatics, by the way, from my love of art history). </p><p><br /></p><p>In terms of originality I think you're going after several separate issues.</p><p><br /></p><p>First of all, I love Cavino's and will probably do a post on them soon. To me comparing them to Roman originals doesn't make a ton of sense, let alone comparing Cavino's to painting mills. Paduans are interesting as historical artifacts that tells us a lot about the relationship between renaissance art and its classical precedence. It is possible that in five hundred years the work of painting mills will be similarly regarded, though I doubt it because they don't have much to do with current artistic thinking. Secondly, Cavino's original medals were made with great technical care, and though you assert otherwise, the difference in quality between an old master and a painted reproduction from a painting mill is huge and obvious (maybe a better comparison would be to a very late cast paduan that, where its status as a reproduction is the first thing you notice about it)! </p><p><br /></p><p>I'd also like to address your points on the question of reproducibility, like the example of the posthumous Rodin sculptures. Artists have for centuries made mechanically reproducible artworks, most notably bronze sculptures that can be re-cast, and prints that can be re-printed. Generally artists did not execute every part of the reproduction process themselves. However they would make the original matrix that was to be reproduced (eg rembrandt and goya etched their own plates but didn't print all the editions of their works.) Since these media inherently revolve around reproducibility, I think it is hard to claim that the products aren't original. A Rembrandt or a Dürer print is BOTH a reproduction and an original--and this is reflected in value. A print by either of those artists would sell for many thousands of dollars (assuming it's not a unique impression, in which case it would probably command more) but a painting would be worth many millions. Similarly, many editions of Goya's prints were published after his death. Coming from his original plates, they are still regarded as originals, but their value goes down as the plates get more and more degraded. As you say there is a level of quality that most of us would not tolerate in our coins--this is very true--however, as with the Goya prints, the quality may effect <i>value</i> but it won't have any impact on <i>originality</i>. </p><p><br /></p><p>I think this is also separate from the controversy of artists such as Jeff Koons who don't make any of their artwork--as you alluded to. I, as an artist, share some of your disdain for this practice. You say "The bottom line today is that an 'original' is whatever the artist declares it to be." I think this is true, but I don't think it has to do with questions of originality that arise from prints, medals, casts, coins etc. Instead this is true because of the trajectory of 20th century art, particularly as set by Marcel Duchamp. For me the question of whether or not something is "art" isn't very useful, because the idea that anything can be art has been a tenet for the past century. Rather the question ought to be "is this interesting." (and in the case of Koons, for instance, the answer would be "no.") </p><p><br /></p><p>This does also pertain to my original post, because it's exactly this idea that I get to hold and own an original, tiny, sculpture by Cellini that gets me so excited![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="ycon, post: 2973528, member: 91771"]Thank you for all the kind words everyone! [USER=82322]@Ed Snible[/USER] love that funny medal have you seen this one? [url]https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=221520[/url] [USER=19463]@dougsmit[/USER] I don't want to turn this thread into an argument about copyright, but here are a couple articles on the topic [url]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernard-starr/museum-paintings-copyright_b_1867076.html[/url] [url]https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/museums-right-to-charge-image-fees-is-called-into-question[/url] In general, old artworks are out of copyright. A new creative act has to be done, modifying the original, in order for that to generate a new copyright. The question, then, is whether or not taking a photograph of an artwork counts as a new creative act. Many museums--in a large part so that they can generate reproduction fees-- have argued that it does, however most courts in the US and England have not agreed. As for what you say about originals, I think your points are slightly muddled (I come to numismatics, by the way, from my love of art history). In terms of originality I think you're going after several separate issues. First of all, I love Cavino's and will probably do a post on them soon. To me comparing them to Roman originals doesn't make a ton of sense, let alone comparing Cavino's to painting mills. Paduans are interesting as historical artifacts that tells us a lot about the relationship between renaissance art and its classical precedence. It is possible that in five hundred years the work of painting mills will be similarly regarded, though I doubt it because they don't have much to do with current artistic thinking. Secondly, Cavino's original medals were made with great technical care, and though you assert otherwise, the difference in quality between an old master and a painted reproduction from a painting mill is huge and obvious (maybe a better comparison would be to a very late cast paduan that, where its status as a reproduction is the first thing you notice about it)! I'd also like to address your points on the question of reproducibility, like the example of the posthumous Rodin sculptures. Artists have for centuries made mechanically reproducible artworks, most notably bronze sculptures that can be re-cast, and prints that can be re-printed. Generally artists did not execute every part of the reproduction process themselves. However they would make the original matrix that was to be reproduced (eg rembrandt and goya etched their own plates but didn't print all the editions of their works.) Since these media inherently revolve around reproducibility, I think it is hard to claim that the products aren't original. A Rembrandt or a Dürer print is BOTH a reproduction and an original--and this is reflected in value. A print by either of those artists would sell for many thousands of dollars (assuming it's not a unique impression, in which case it would probably command more) but a painting would be worth many millions. Similarly, many editions of Goya's prints were published after his death. Coming from his original plates, they are still regarded as originals, but their value goes down as the plates get more and more degraded. As you say there is a level of quality that most of us would not tolerate in our coins--this is very true--however, as with the Goya prints, the quality may effect [I]value[/I] but it won't have any impact on [I]originality[/I]. I think this is also separate from the controversy of artists such as Jeff Koons who don't make any of their artwork--as you alluded to. I, as an artist, share some of your disdain for this practice. You say "The bottom line today is that an 'original' is whatever the artist declares it to be." I think this is true, but I don't think it has to do with questions of originality that arise from prints, medals, casts, coins etc. Instead this is true because of the trajectory of 20th century art, particularly as set by Marcel Duchamp. For me the question of whether or not something is "art" isn't very useful, because the idea that anything can be art has been a tenet for the past century. Rather the question ought to be "is this interesting." (and in the case of Koons, for instance, the answer would be "no.") This does also pertain to my original post, because it's exactly this idea that I get to hold and own an original, tiny, sculpture by Cellini that gets me so excited![/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
The Coins of Benvenuto Cellini (not ancient, but...)
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...