wallets and whose voice is being heard loud and clear within
the market.
Artists no longer have to worry about a single
exhibition or single critic making or breaking their careers.
The careers of appreciated artists grow in support everyday
as new collectors come to discover their work, take it home
and find it is something they enjoy. Those artists embraced
by the public are able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and
don't have to wait for their death to be recognized.
This renaissance has been made possible by
computers and the ability to reproduce artwork digitally.
High definition photographs and print-on-demand have also
gone a long way towards aiding in the price reduction for
artwork. In earlier times if an artist wanted to create a
series they would have to pay a reproduction house,
whether it was for etchings, lithographs, or serigraphs, the
cost for the entire series up front. Even decades ago an
investment like this could reach the tens or hundreds of
thousands of dollars. This was a practice only the most
successful artists and publishers could afford.
You will hear a lot of critics and gallery owners who
claim to be purists declaring, "if it's not an original, then it's
not really worth noticing." To them I say, "If this is the
case, then you are limiting your own market and limiting the
entire art market to maybe less than 1/2 of 1% of the
population who can start to afford 30, 40 or 50 thousand
dollars for just one painting on their wall." I think this is a
very elitist point of view and inherently flawed because it
would be tremendously unfortunate if a person falls in love
with an artwork and can't have it because the real issue is
the price of the work.
A reproduction, as long as it has true fidelity to the
quality of the original work, is a great thing. It allows a