Three-dimensional printing has aided architects, doctors, and weapon designers, but now, its practicality is catching the attention of many art curators. Only one museum can enjoy an original, making the demand for high quality replicas as high as the demand for originals. Innovative methods have led to near exact duplication of colors and depth, but never the ripples of paint made by the brush. Until now.
van gogh museum
Fujifilm has developed the technology to scan and replicate not only color and size, but also the minute details made by artists. The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam is assessing the precision Fujifilm claims to have in replication. Daniella Levy, whoe half a millimeter left or right.” Perfecting the copies, the Van Gogh Museum hopes to sell extremely high quality replicas, relievos, for $30,000 or more, depending on the paintings copied. Unlike many other museums, the Van Gogh Museum is mostly self-financed. Ticket sales, museum-shop revenue and other earned-income make up 75% of the museums funding. By testing Fujifilm’s technology, museum curators hope to find a substantial source of income.
So far, the reproductions from the Van Gogh museum are only on sale in Hong Kong, where the museum felt was a good test market. “In Asia van Gogh is incredibly popular and it’s the right market for it,” said Mr. Rüger, director of the Van Gogh Museum. “We’re going to launch in Taiwan next, and others will follow.”
Asides from making money, this technology has much to offer to art experts. 3-D scanning can unveil the process behind art, showing the original sketch or layout underneath the finished work. “Because sometimes artists applied an under-painting or an under-drawing, and you usually find a whole package of layers that you didn’t see with the naked eye.”
example of 3-d printer
Work Cited
Siegal, Nina. “Technology Mimics the Brushstrokes of Masters.” Nytimes.com. New York Times, 23 Oct. 2013. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.
I have to wonder if this is considered forgery. It’s amazing that technology has been able to make advances in art by transforming 3D printing into something so accurate and powerful. Yet, for Fujifilm to be able to develop this type of technology and for museum curators to use such technology to make replicas is something I’d consider a positive event. These curators are hoping to make money off of these replicas after testing whether the technology Fujifilm has made is accurate enough. Is that not what art forgery is about? There are people who, without technology, make detailed replicas of Van Gogh’s Starry Night. They sell them for high prices and it’s called art forgery. How is this any different? Is the fine distinction based on who does the act? Are these curators able to get away with such actions that non-art curators can’t?
I agree with you on the fact that such technology has much to offer to the art sector. Yet, to use such technology to make money rather than to delve more into art itself… it seems ironic when thinking about art forgery in general.
This is a really fascinating idea to me. 3D printing seems very beneficial and quite amazing. I have heard about 3D printers, but I’ve never seen what the results looked like (the picture you showed looks so realistic). As sijiayou said, I wonder if the 3D prints would fall under copyrights and forgery. It seems very similar to one of the other articles someone posted, where a talented artist forged famous paintings and sold these fake pieces of art for outrageous prices. Yes, the Museum is not a person or a con artist, but would they be penalized like one? Still I think 3D printings will spread amazing art and is extremely beneficial to the art field.
I have been fascinated with 3D printers for quite a while now. However, it comes to mind whether this new progress in printing can be considered forgery. And if the argument against it is that it replicates the EXACT copy, then won’t it simply undermine the value of the originals? If the original, which the artist spent YEARS working on can be replicated several times in just mere minutes (or however long it takes, I’m almost positive it won’t take years though), then won’t it take away from the value that the original artist put into the artwork. I feel like the less there is, the more valuable it is. This process of creating more is just going to make the paintings worthless and essentially useless.
Like everyone else, I can’t help but feel like 3D printing is in a way, somewhat wrong. Technology has gotten so great that 3D printers could now replicate paintings or pieces of artwork in a shorter amount of time than how it is normally supposed to take. I feel like this will somewhat discourage forgery artists because of the detail 3D printing can achieve but it also defeats the point of painting—to practice technique and experience the act of painting, instead of just using a printer to create replicas.
I think selling replicas of original paintings is wrong. It takes all the credit away from the original. So it is rather absurd that with 3D printing the original and the replica can be indistinguishable. This is definitely a controversial issue which will change the art world.
This seems to be a conflict between technological innovation and old-age craftsmanship. Although I would normally support technological innovation, I can’t help but feel betrayed like my fellow Macaulay peers. From a business perspective, the value of the original sculpture is definitely affected when a printer can produce almost the same item and sell it for a fraction of the cost. It does rob the artist of their creative ability and is a form of forgery. The replicas should be sold at a much lower price as the current price of $30,000 seems to be a bit steep for a fake.
I truthfully don’t think that is a great idea. Ever since there has been art there has been art forgery and the Fujifilm machine will just take forgery to the next level. I fear the machine is going to finally allow forgers to outwit the world and actually duplicate the exact works of art and pass them off as the originals. I think conceptually it is a nice idea to perfectly replicate the art in order to allow many more people to basque in its beauty, but I think practically its just asking for trouble. So while I do admire the technology and the thought process behind it, I think they are asking for trouble.
I agree with everyone this new form of printing may be considered a form forgery but can be really say it takes away from the original? Does is have all the same layers of oils and mixtures of colors as Picasso’s Guernica, or Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa or Van Gogh’s Starry Night, I doubt it.
It will be interesting to see how technology will continue to influence art. Though I don’t agree with the replication of paintings, as it takes away human feel and genuine meaning of the work, I believe that technology will only have a growing part in the art world. Methods mentioned like 3D printing allow for new forms of art and I think that this new platform can be embraced by the art community. Only, of course, if this platform is used for the creation of new works and not solely for replication of previous works.
I would not consider these replicas to be forgery. Fujifilm did not forge these artworks, they have achieved a level of technology capable of making exact replicas. If they were able to make the art, I don’t see anything wrong with selling the replicas. People know they are exact copies and not originals; if they are willing to pay for the pieces, I don’t see anything wrong with it. I still believe the original piece cannot be absolutely identical to these replicas either.
Very interesting piece. I remember an article one of us wrote about a few weeks ago, saying that a certain museum was going bankrupt because it could not find funds. We had been debating if the museum should sell its art or not. I’m saying this because you pointed out, very aptly, that the Van Gogh museum is self-financed–how else would it expect to remain open, if not for selling these replicas? In addition, because it was brought up in the comments, replicas of art have been around for centuries. As long as people are told that the piece is a replica, and not the real thing, it cannot be truly called a forgery. That is, I think, the primary difference.
I’ve been hearing a lot about 3D printers lately, but I haven’t really seen what they can do, so seeing a picture of 3D printing in action was stunning. To think that 3D printing could reveal the layers of paint beneath an artist’s work, or the methods used to create the art–that’s something that probably no one believed could happen 30 or 40 years ago. Not to mention that it would be amazing to analyze such a high-quality replica. I have to wonder if Fujifilm’s claim IS valid, and I think I’m going to follow up on the evaluation that the museum seems to be conducting.
When I read this, I felt like the 3D scanning was just another way of forging art. It’s amazing how far technology has come. Although I don’t think making money off of the replicas is a good idea, I do think the 3D scanning is a good idea. The scans can detect even the smallest details and can show the underlying original sketch, so maybe that could inspire some artists. If the art process of famous artists is revealed, it could really spark a creative part in another artist’s mind. I agree with Jessamyn in that even if the scans can capture every single detail, will it really capture every mistake and cover-up that the artist made? If not, I don’t think the price of the replica should or could be even close to the price of the original.
I think that technology like this is wonderful and completely positive. Allowing for works to be more widespread and available is definitely a great job that 3-D printing can provide. Not even considering the ability to break down a piece into its primal elements, raising funding through making art more available is altogether great. I believe that in the future, if this article is accurate, we will be able to use 3-D printing as a tool for developing artists. I think that 3-D printing will become more and more crucial for education. Now, instead of having to provide the resources to view originals, a school can use a single device to replicate and break down art pieces. Instead of the sometimes dull and mandatory trips to the museum, we could create the piece in class and through doing this understand its components and get at the core of how the artist created a particular piece. I think that this type of printing will provide a resource that may almost be better than viewing the original behind glass. Many of those involved in the arts do so because they are kinesthetic learners, and allowing students to do hands on activities with a piece so close to the original could be crucial to the development of new artists.
Like a multitude of the comments before me have proposed, is this technological advance forgery in disguise? I would say yes. Originals are originals for a reason — there is only one. Paintings, sculptures, and other pieces of art have creators, dates of creations, and histories. Art is sought after and valued for the artist who creates the master piece, for the technique of the hand, perfection of the stroke, as well as the history and reputation of its creator. Forgeries are worthless. They possess non of the worthy qualities of a painting. Makers of forgeries, are criminals, and so is this technology.
The invention of 3D printing signals a postive progress of technology to be able to 3D print an art work. The technology is valuable and innovative because we can use replica for art work study, analysis, and anatomy. Still, like everyone else, this technology should be regulated to prevent art forgery.
I feel as if three-D printers will take art forgery to an entire new level. Not only will the reproductions be accurate within half a millimeter, there will be almost no personal labor in producing the piece which will drive the price of the forgery down significantly. Not to mention, there will be nothing to stop someone from copying a sculpture of an original and selling the copy as the original. Crazy stuff, great article.