Slashdot Mirror
Van Gogh Prints In 3D: Almost the Real Thing For $34,000
dryriver writes "The Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam has developed high-quality 3D reproductions of some of its finest paintings, with what it describes as the most advanced copying technique ever seen. Axel Rüger, the museum's director, said: "It really is the next generation of reproductions because they go into the third dimension. If you're a layman, they are pretty indistinguishable [from the originals]. Of course, if you're a connoisseur and you look more closely, you can see the difference. Each reproduction is priced £22,000 – somewhat more than the cost of a postcard or poster. But the museum is hoping to increase access to pictures which, if they were sold, would go for tens of millions of pounds to Russian oligarchs or American billionaires. The replicas, called Relievos, are being created by the museum in partnership with Fujifilm, with which it has had an exclusive deal for three years. Such is the complexity of the technology, known as Reliefography, that it has taken more than seven years to develop and only three a day can be made. It combines a 3D scan of the painting with a high-resolution print. The "super-accurate" reproduction even extends to the frame and the back of the painting. Every Relievo is numbered and approved by a museum curator. There is a limited edition of 260 copies per painting."
"But the museum is hoping to increase access to pictures"
"Every Relievo is numbered and approved by a museum curator. There is a limited edition of 260 copies per painting."
Well, what's it going to be? If this is about 'increasing access' or some similar highflown motivation, why are they limiting the editions and pushing the individual-numbering-and-'approval'-to-make-a-reproduction-feel-authentic nonsense?
If this is just a fundraiser, why start at 22K?
No abuse will happen here, No way that the forgeries will become too good... No way that no computer will be hacked for a forgery!!!
I understand what they are trying to get at. BUT this is like 3d printed guns all over. Granted it relates to overpriced pieces of paint, but hey to each their own.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
This enterprise will be
1. A huge flop, and
2. A favorite B-school case study for marketing class
How many zirconium necklaces would be sold if the price was $2000?
I'll pretend to be naive and assume any future Supreme Court will stick with precedent that "slavish copies" of 2-D works and apply that to "slavish copies" of 3D works as well.
In other words, this could be a gold mine for museums that want to sell "extremely good reproductions" of non-public-domain works that at first glance show brushstroke-by-brushstroke accuracy in 3 dimensions, but for public-domain works, if the price is too high, cheap "second generation copies" sold near the cost of reproduction will reduce the money-making abilities of the museums, in the same way that if a museum sells a high-quality 2-D print of a Van Gough, I can make a bazillion very good second-generation knock-offs and sell them for under $10.
Reality check: Who knows who will be appointed to the Supreme Court between now and the time such a case reaches them?
If you haven't seen the painting in person, don't make fun of this. Like most people, I saw pictures of Van Gogh's paintings in books for years. Then when I was in my early 20s I visited the Metropolitan, where IIRC at least two Van Goghs were there. The big takeaway from seeing them in person is the heavy paint. You might even go so far as to say "gobs", but that would be an insult. There was obvious genius in the way it was applied, and from that moment no picture books is the same. Strangely, Van Gogh paintings in person also reminded me a bit of 60s psychedelia which oddly (just a bit) made me think of them as cheap-looking, until I considered that this was the 19th century and what we now see as familiar was quite revolutionary.
Love or hate, you'll look at his work differently if you see it in person. The exhibit that traveled to Washington DC did not give me the same impression, but I seem to recall being velvet-roped a bit further back. The Met made up for that by having the security guard practically breathing down your neck, which is perfectly understandable.
The summary makes it quite clear that the goal is to offer rich people something so they will not buy all the real paintings in which case the museums had nothing left to display. There are not that many people around that could buy the originals, so there is no need to produce more. Actually having them more rare makes it more likely those that otherwise would buy one of the originals take one of those realistic reproductions instead.
Captcha: continue
A 2-D photo of a 2-D work - and Van Gough paintings are close enough to "2D" that a straight-on photograph without any framing or other "creative elements" in it is in the public domain.
Although a photo of a framed public-domain piece can be copyrighted, cropping away the frame removes the copyright.
If you're a layman, they are pretty indistinguishable [from the originals]. Of course, if you're a connoisseur and you look more closely, you can see the difference.
Wouldn't the same apply to a copy by an artist?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I suppose I could make a crack about them trying this with a Pollock, but I personally consider slopping paint on the floor over and over again to not be art. My art history professor of course vehemently disagreed. But I digress (and I know you googled Pollock and didn't actually know who he was before now, but I forgive you)...
3D printing can indeed reproduce the topology of the painting; This isn't news. Fakes have been being produced for years with close attention to how each stroke was made, layered, etc. Some of them have even been computer-assisted, in much the same way signatures have been duplicated by recording and modulating the pressure of a pen on the paper. However, while they may look pretty authentic, anyone doing a proper forensic analysis on the work would very quickly uncover it. The fact is that 3D printers laying down paint do so at a very, achem, mechanical speed. Which means it doesn't form the same pattern of bubbling and whatnot that would happen if it was laid down by a brush, by a human. There's other physics involved as well; Carbon dating, pigmentation, humidity, temperature... all of these effect how the final work appears forensically. The best forgeries are still done by humans. Until a 3D printer is able to print in parallel, with each 'head' at varying speed and direction, it will be easy to detect.
And I don't care how limited the run is, or who it's signed by... it's xeroxing. Sure, it's in 3D -- good for you! It's still no different than buying a postcard in the art shop, and I wouldn't spend anything on that either. If I want to experience a painting in a real and viceral way... I pay for a museum membership (or befriend someone who has one) and arrange for a sitting with the painting.
Something not generally known to the public -- you can arrange for some one-on-one time with most paintings at most museums (except for the most famous ones... which tend to be more, ah, burgouise). Many fine arts majors do this in order to sit down paint with the real thing right next to them, under controlled lighting and such... in order to perfect their technique. But in case you're wondering... yes, a guard is in the room with you, so don't get any ideas. But for the true art lover... an after-hours viewing is worth far more than a 3D replicated version. And then there's the emotional presence of knowing you are sitting by yourself with a famous painting... not in some busy museum gallery, but in a quiet back room in a warehouse.
But for decorating my bathroom... I might consider something like this. As long as it isn't a replica of a Pollock... which if one were ever gifted to me, I'd promptly reach for the lighter fluid and see how well it burned.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The article is in The Guardian, so it makes sense for the price of the paintings to be mentioned in pounds, but they could have changed it to euros for the summary. After all, that is the currency in the Netherlands. A bit of googling yielded more details and a price of € 25,000 (about US$ 33,500) for each replica.
Van Gough paintings are close enough to "2D" that a straight-on photograph without any framing or other "creative elements" in it is in the public domain.
This is true in the United States (Bridgeman v. Corel, citing Feist v. Rural). But some other countries recognize a "sweat of the brow" copyright: the Australian counterpart to Feist (Telstra v. Desktop) went the other way. I don't know how the law works in the Netherlands.
If I have $34,000 to spend on an art, I'm going to buy a genuine art, not a reproduction.
Often imitated never equaled. Abstract expressionism was, and often remains, a high-brow art con game. That much is obvious. But many critics who were otherwise unimpressed by the 'abstract movement' felt that its founder, Pollock himself, was on to something different. They could see that he was seeing.... something. Pollock himself always maintained that he was painting "The rhythms of nature". Recently a discovery was made about his work that lends a lot of credence to his vision. I saw the documentary elsewhere, but this quote from the Wikipedia article on Pollock. tells the story better than I can.
In the 21st century, the physicists Richard Taylor, Micolich and Jonas studied Pollock's works and technique. They determined that some works display the properties of mathematical fractals.[20] They assert that the works expressed more fractal qualities as Pollock progressed in his career.[21] The authors speculate that Pollock may have had an intuition of the nature of chaotic motion, and tried to express mathematical chaos, more than ten years before "Chaos Theory" was proposed. Their work was used in trying to evaluate the authenticity of some works that were represented as Pollock's.
As for this article... I bought a painting at IKEA for an apartment we were renting out . It was an abstract print on canvas, but it had real paint on it with lots of texture. I wondered if it was painted by a robot or some kind of 3-D process since it was one of several. Interior designers like abstracts because they are non-entities. They fill space but disappear. Since they have no narrative they can't offend. That is, unless you are offended by the very idea of them.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Ok, it won't be stroke-for-stroke accurate, but for 90% of artwork, and 99% of viewers, a decent copy is good enough. They range in price from a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand USD, depending on size.
Let's face it, most people really don't have the decor to support "classic art". This is clearly aimed at buyers who are looking to flaunt their wealth and/or support the arts, as well as have a conversation piece.
For certain art, even the artists made many versions... which version of Van Gogh's Sunflowers do you want? how about a Monet Haystacks?
I wonder if these pieces come with a EULA, restricting the making of copies from the copy... and how would they prevent that, unless they introduce "flaws" to be tracked...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
A 2-D photo of a 2-D work - and Van Gough paintings are close enough to "2D"
If you see them in person they are not at all in 2D, especially something like the famous Sunflowers painting - they have fairly tall ridges and brushwork all over the place.
There are many painters for whom what you say would make sense, not Van Gough. The 3D aspect is a large part of the appeal of the work.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The fact that they also won't allow photography without a flash
They will not allow photography without a flash because 90% of people who thought they were not using the flash would find it fired anyway in the dimly lit viewing room.
To actually take a half decent picture in those lighting conditions you'd pretty much have to have a tripod anyway.
It really is a matter of preservation more than anything else.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You tend to be a bit obsessive-compulsive. Right?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I can get the same effect from 40mg of dimethyltryptamine and a half-pint of jagermeister.
Plus, the stars in Starry Night will turn into tiny aliens that talk to me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's pretty outrageous that these institutions monopolize cultural treasures that are long out of copyright. These 3D scans should be publicly available so that anybody who wants to can reproduce the artwork in whatever detail they are capable of.
... or insightful, depending on just how expensive it is to make these 3D prints.
Oh, and good inkjet ink at retail really does cost more than gold by the gram.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I always felt there should be a Turing test for painting. Where a robotic arm paints a picture, and the test is: can a fine art connoisseur tell the difference?
In the world of photographic prints, a well-cared for negative can make many prints with little or no difference in the printed copy. But even a photo-negative made of typical plastic materials won't last forever, especially if the printing process causes it to heat up under the light.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What would make a reproduction worth seeing isn't whether the surface is 3D, oh God how stupid.
What would make a difference is color gamut and dynamic range (paint can have limitlessly pure colors by picking the specific pigments and much much wider dynamic range than normal printing).
Notice that this stupid advert doesn't mention anything like that which would affect the quality of the reproduction. You can google all you want and you won't find anything either.
It's bullshit pure and simple. Wow, the poor quality reproductions that won't look any more like the original than any other photograph will have TEXTURE. Gods, save us.
You know normal reproductions really DO fail horribly on color and dynamic range. And if the technology is based on 4 color printing then these will be SOOO horrible.
They will not allow photography without a flash because 90% of people who thought they were not using the flash would find it fired anyway in the dimly lit viewing room.
If a photographer on museum property can show conspicuous black tape over the camera's flash, the only reason I can think of to restrict photography is monopoly protection.
Most valuable works of art are out of copyright, and have massive intrinsic value in and of themselves, so we should feel ZERO concern if somewhere like China churns out effective 3D copies of their own for a very modest cost of ownership. Indeed, it should be part of copyright law that out-of-copyright works displayed to the public should place no restriction on those reasonably seeking to obtain data to allow them to make their own copies. It is obscene when museums and art galleries attempt to continue to benefit from EXCLUSIVE access to the form of the work itself. The "we have the real version" should be good enough for them. If Mankind becomes satisfied with looking at good replicas instead, the overall IQ of the planet will have gone up significantly.
And for the dribbling shills that want to defend the art 'market', I'd point out that many artists made copies of their own works, so the concept of "as good as the original" replicas has existed since demand for particular works was first identified. Laws in nations outside the USA designed to 'protect' against unauthorised copies of museum/gallery works-of-art are in place purely to protect the financial interests of the elites, so the production of cheap 'perfect' (in look, not materials- these are most certainly NOT counterfeits) copies really sticks it to filthy groups of individuals that have manipulated the legal system for their own narrow financial benefit.
Cheap 'perfect' copies will NOT make the original vanish, and will not deny the rights of MORONS to value the original at obscene levels. Cheap 'perfect' copies will ensure that works of art are never lost- how many scumbag museums have allowed petty criminals to steal (and frequently destroy) 'priceless' works of art because the owners preferred to pocket profits rather than pay for even a single watchman- and of course none of these lost works had been subject to proper 3D photography and scans. .
The purpose is to make a copy that LOOKS identical, you cretin. This means that unlike a counterfeit copy, materials will be used that make the replication process as easy as possible. Guess what, you idiot. This means that one second of inspection will make it clear the copy IS a copy.
How does a person get to be as stupid as you, SerpentMage? Is your IQ that low that you image a 3D printer that somehow uses the same types of atom found in the original painting, and somehow applies those atoms in ways that builds up the compounds that the canvas and paint now consist of? Are you REALLY that thick. I mean, this is a level of pure unadulterated idiocy that must set a new record for Slashdot. And yet, people up-voted your dribble. No wonder the owners of Slashdot push so many propaganda stories here designed to promote was with Syria, Iran and eventually China.
For god's sake, hanging around places like this does NOT make you smart. Try reading some books- attempt to learn something about the technical issues described here. Make an effort.
Look at this another way -- would you want someone carrying a loaded gun
In your analogy, a camera with its flash neutered is closer to an unloaded gun with the ammo carried separately. One has to do an overt act (remove the tape or load the gun) to turn either into a working weapon.
Only being able to produce three a day doesn't mean the technology is complicated, it only means they don't have enough machines.
Did he print himself an ear?
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
If I had a 3D printer, one of the first things I'd do would be to scale up a Van Gogh and print a giant version. The depth of his paintings is insane and would look amazing scaled up a few times. Hell, this should be a thing - 12" square tiles you affix to a wall which make a giant version of, say, Mulberry Tree and cover an entire wall of a room from floor to ceiling...
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
"each is clearly marked with an unbreakable seal."
that sounds like a challenge...
(and where a fraudulent fortune can be made, or because it is there, challenges get conquered eventually)
This reminds me of an old Popular Science story about how an LED watch (the first) cost $10,000 to buy. The technology to make perfect copies of your artwork of choice is only a year or two away. And the cost will by minimal.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
You may call it genius, but it's probably better described as dumb chance.
Vincent van Gogh didn't take up painting, or any kind of art, until his late 20's, and it shows. By looking at his early work objectively (meaning all but his very latest work), clearly shows him for what he really was: someone who, with very limited skill, tried to imitate Monet and his one sided friend Gauguin (van Gogh was too obtuse or too self absorbed to realize Gauguin didn't exactly like him back). Because he lacked the skill, and most of all because he was a lazy perpetual drunk, he couldn't be bothered to carefully place all those dots, and used bold strokes instead. That the result was something 'new' or at least idiosyncratic may not have been the result of an artistic, creative process, but rather of the lack of one. In his life, by all accounts he was a horrible narcissistic and neurotic freak, living as a parasite on his brother's back. The only time anything resembling talent started to shine through, was when he was confined to a psychiatric institution. It was only here, temporarily cut off from drinking and whoring, where he actually managed to put in the work, and created something that objectively (once you strip away the hype) could be described as art.
The rest of his career, he created infantile, amateuristic illustrations rather than art, but created the timeless hype by living his life as a kind of self destructive performance art.
In a way, it's best to think of him as the Sid Vicious of painting.
I am, as I said, no great fan of Abstract Expressionism. A 'high brow con game' is what I said it had become. What I wanted to make clear was that Pollock was honest in his work. And that, without knowing he was doing so as such, he was channeling a mathematical reality that he saw or felt in nature. Nobody else has the high fractal index that his work has. It is diagnostic. And viewers sense it rather than see it. Our brains are wired to do so. That said, I agree with you that AE proved to be a dead end of sorts since it is so easy to phony up. Also the artist's expression of feelings is not communicated intact to the viewer with these paintings -- even Pollock's. They are emotionally quite neutral IMHO. Which is why interior designers love them for bank lobbies and such.
I am glad you did not dismiss him out of hand, but after due consideration. Ha ha. I think it took guts to stand up as you did to the tyranny of consensus. And to your small-minded art prof. You deserved an A for critical thinking. And for knowing what you like. And don't. And saying why.
For expressionism I prefer Edvard Munch. There is an awesome show in Oslo Norwayfor the next month or so for his 150th anniversary. He is a lot more than The Scream.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Am I the only one who remembers seeing this sort of 3-d painting reproduction featured on Beyond 2000 a good 20 years ago? They made a rubber mold of the original painting, printed the copy either with special ink or onto a surface that could be flash melted to fit the mold.
Dyolf Knip
If they made exceptions for "trustworthy people who super pinkie swore they wouldn't use a flash", they would have to make an exception for everyone.
If one shows the physically blocked flash to the museum guide, I think that's a bit stronger than a "pinky swear".