Re: Fine Art Reproductions

On 1999-04-05, Robert Baron <rabaron[_at_]pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> Whereas it is possible to reproduce a "text" exactly, it is impossible
> to create an exact simulacrum of a visual work of art. There will
> always be a difference between the original and the copy. The relevant
> question is this: Are these differences purposeful and representative
> of some original view of the copyist, or are they due to inherent
> limitations, faults and/or imperfections in the reproductive process?
> If these differences are due the former, then, I'd say that the copy
> is copyrightable, if the latter, then there is no originality.

Photographing works of art (something I oversee in the course of my work) is unimaginably difficult, frustrating, and "sweat-of-the-brow" describes it perfectly. It it highly intuitive and involves a lot of very creative input, creative decisions and improvisations -- in short everyting that would *not* describe unoriginal copying. This is something I've been thinking about as I've followed the Bridgeman vs. Corel case -- and while I've been working in the studio, sweating out yet another shot.

To be frank, our intention (mine and the photographer's) when photographing a work of art is *not* to reproduce it as accurately as possible. If we wanted to do that, we'd be working in oil on canvas, pastel on paper, or another medium. What we are trying to create, and I am choosing my words deliberately, is an original 4x5 inch color transparency, a slice of celluloid which is really a new work, and which functions as a tool. It cannot reproduce the work of art we're photographing; it can only give an idea of it, represent it. We aren't after accuracy in the sense of copying, reproducing, substitution or forgery, but we try to capture the elements which will successfully translate into a fair representation of the work when printed, in greatly reduced size, on the printed page.

One of the great frustrations in photographing works of art is the impossibility (perhaps, in the end, an advantage) of achieving "accuracy." There are pigments which simply defy capture on emulsion and translation via developing chemicals. (I have a private, rather cynical theory regarding Monet's blues.) Yes, we want to represent the yellows in a van Gogh -- but good luck. Having recently spent days (and three photographers) trying to create a satisfactory transparency of a Duchamp collage incorporating a piece of silver foil (sheer hell, if you want to know), I can only laugh at the idea that our intent is to "accurately reproduce" the work. These inherent limitations, as Robert Baron calls them, are exactly what make it neccessary for us to create something new, an original effort, that will function in an entirely different way from the work of art.

In short, while on the surface the Bridgeman vs. Corel decision sounds logical, I can't help feeling that the court did not delve into nor really understand the intent and process of photographing two-dimensional works of art, nor the originality of the resulting photographs.

amalyah keshet
head of visual resources, the israel museum, jerusalem board of directors, the museum computer network chair, the mcn intellectual property special interest group akeshet[_at_]imj.org.il
<http://www.imj.org.il/> Received on Fri Apr 09 1999 - 14:33:08 GMT