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?
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.
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
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
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.
Plenty of courts have shown that exact replicas of an existing work show no originality, and are thus merely mechanical reproductions unworthy of a unique copyright. In other words, the replicas cannot be copyrighted separately from the original work. (The ability to produce replicas remains with the original work's owner.)
Meanwhile, the original works are in the public domain, having been produced in the 1880s or 1890s. So there's no original owner. In other words, anyone can produce a copy or derivative of any style you choose, limited only by your access to the original to study it.
If these reproductions don't come with a EULA, there's nothing legally stopping me from scanning it myself and printing 2000 more copies.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.