Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T08:04:04.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Art reproductions and authenticity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2016

Trevor Fawcett
Trevor Fawcett*
Affiliation:
Bath, U.K.
Get access

Abstract

Whatever their format, reproductions provide illusory experiences of art, but may count as ‘authentic’ if adequate to their purpose and the technical possibilities and expectations of their time. A reproduction seizes the original at one moment in its history, a fact that should be made clear in its captioning. Engraved and other graphic reproductions, being hand-made, were always subjective and idealising. The camera brought greater objectivity, but even modern colour photographs interpret and mislead. The digital image offers still greater potential for exact realisation of, and access to, works of art, but its ease of manipulation increases the risk of falsification. Reproductions also have a psychological existence as mental constructs. Art and its institutions depend on them, and allow them to create their own authenticity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Art Libraries Journal , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , 1997, pp. 20 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © The Art Libraries Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Grimm, Herman. ‘Die Umgestaltung des Universitätsvorlesungen über neuere Kunstgeschichte durch die Anwendung des Skioptikons’, Beiträge zur deutschenCulturgeschichte. Berlin, 1897, p.276–395.Google Scholar
2. Delacroix, Eugène. Journal, ed. Joubin, A., 3 vols. Paris 1932, vol. 2, entry for 29 July 1854.Google Scholar
3. Athenaeum, 1855 p.1245.Google Scholar
4. Scott, George Gilbert. A Plea for the Faithful Restoration of our Ancient Churches. London, 1850, p.21.Google Scholar
5. Boudon, Philippe. Lived-in Architecture: Le Gorbusier’s Pessac Revisited. London, 1972.Google Scholar
6. For a fuller comparison of the processes see Fawcett, Trevor, ‘Graphic versus photographic in the nineteenth-century reproduction’, Art History vol.9 no. 2, 1986 p.185–212.Google Scholar
7. Beaux-Arts, Gazette des 1865 p.316, translated from the original French.Google Scholar
8. Miller’s, Jonathan phrase, quoted by Hughes, Robert in the symposium ‘The one and the many: art and mass reproduction’, Art News vol. 81 November 1982 p.110–120.Google Scholar
9. For the impact of digitisation see Hamber, Anthony, ‘Conventional photography vs analogue and digital electronic imaging’, Computers and the History of Art, ed. Hamber, A., Miles, J. and Vaughan, W.. London, 1989, p.23–49. Recent technical developments can be followed in magazines like British Journal of Digital Imaging.Google Scholar
10. The paradox is discussed in Lieberman, Ralph, ‘Thoughts of an art historian/photographer on the relationship of his two disciplines’, Art History through the Camera’s Lens, ed. Roberts, Helene E.. Amsterdam, 1995, p.217–246. On the ‘unnaturalness’ of photography and the assumptions of picture-making see also Snyder, Joel, ‘Picturing vision’, The Language of Images, ed. Mitchell, W. J. T.. Chicago, 1980.Google Scholar
11. Eitner, Lorenz. Art history and the sense of quality’, Critiques III. New York, Cooper School of Art and Architecture, 1974, p.13–36.Google Scholar