Difference between an “original” and a “reproduction”

<p>Before you tell me that this topic has been covered for the 100th time..... maybe someone has a different professional perspective that could shed some enlightenment. <br>

I'm often in a situation either with an exhibit or show with differeing views on what is "original" vs. "reproduction" and subsequently how I need to market my work in these venues. In general I'm mostly asked (or required) to label my digital photography prints, whether open or limited editions, as reproductions. But honestly I am having a hard time with this.<br>

If my interpretations are correct, "originals" are those in which the artist directly supervised the entire process, and "reproductions" would be something say like I shot the original photograph in 35mm negative but then I scanned it to a digital file and reproduced accordingly (like a painter who "photographs" his work and reproduces a thousand as monotypes or something. So, with that in mind would I be correct to consider my artwork as "originals" in the sense that it was carefully produced and printed under my direct supervision - I shot the photo, performed all post processing/editing from RAW through to the artistic image final, and lastly mastered all printing output on my own equipment.<br>

So, what would you suggest is the correct path? I'd like to know if I'm supposed to label as a "reproduction" just because digital photography is the process of reproducing a single image over and over, either in limited or open edition quantities or not .....<br>

Any takers?</p>

<p>Unless you are selling negatives, slides, or cibachromes shot inside the camera the word reproduction does not apply well to photography. Every print is a reproduction in some way. The people running the show should know that.<br>

<br /> If I use my reproductive system to create a child is the child a reproduction or an original? Words mean different things in different contexts.</p>

that terminology is hold over from the lithograph and print art days - it's still relevant to them. A photograph is an original if it's not a reproduction. The print can be the only one, if the file or negative is destroyed, but it's original because it's the only image like it, no matter how many their are. All that stuff you listed about how involved is the artist is part of the history, or the story of the piece, it is important and could have a bearing on the it's value. An Ansel Adams "original" is worth more than one printed, with the same plate 50 years later.

 

I think it also depends on how the image is made. For example, plates and "stamps" wear out and so the images they produced were "limited." Originals were made from the original plate or stone lithograph, and after the "stamp" wore out, it was no longer used. Reproductions are made from reproducing an image of the original . . . a snap shot or a print of a print. . . today, a print from a digital file is as original as it gets for a digital photograph. . . it may have been done by the artist which might help it's value, but to me photographers are grasping if they are trying to take the meaning of original from the lithograph and paint world. . .

 

Tony

<p>I agree with Tony. My wife is, among other things, a fine art printmaker. She's got 150-pound litho stones in her studio, with her own artwork hand-drawn on them. Though she might make 100 prints from those stones, they'd all be considered originals - and there will be an end to her ability to make them, as the image on the stone or plates decays. At some point, we could take the hand-pulled print from one of those stones (an <em>actual </em>lithograph), and do a high quality scan or photograph of it, and have commercially made reproductions of it made, ad nauseum. Or, a skilled attelier could re-create the print, freshly, on stone or plate. The gallery business has some pretty clear definitions about all of that when it comes to traditional paintings, prints (whether intaglio, litho, woodcut, etc), and the like.<br /><br />Photography is a bit dicier, that's for sure. The same negative can be involved in thousands of prints, in practical terms. Obviously there's no limit to the output from digital media. I would steer towards calling any print that you made yourself, or had made under from your source file at your direction or at your specifications, to be an original photographic print. I would consider any print that was created by making an <em>image of one of your prints</em> to be a reproduction.<br /><br />Definitely a moving target, these days. But if you create the image, and print it yourself (or have it done at your request), I'd be comfortable calling it original. As for the size of the edition, etc... that's a sales and marketing decision, and includes heavy use of the honor system, to say the least.</p>

<p>Allen,<br>

I would say that the original is the first creation and the reproductions are what comes after the first. Kind of like Adam and Eve were the first creations and we are reproductions born from them,so your original is the first work created and everything after that was born from that ergo a recreation. You could change the terminology for those people who are word challenged and say creation and recreation.</p>

<p>Sorry I meant re-creation not recreation...i'm word challenged today.</p>

<p>Many thanks everyone for your contributions. VERY helpful. <br>

Marta, I like your idea but perhaps "original reproduction" would be appropriate? That's sort of contradictory according to the terminology but possibly more accurate?<br>

In the end, I feel the use of "original" in some manner would work, since the entire process is hands-on "by me".</p>