Dear Artist,
A question appeared in the inbox recently, and I’m wondering what you think: A brother and sister inherited two of my dad’s paintings and devised a plan for how to best enjoy them. They decided to each keep one painting and wrote to ask if they could make two giclées — high quality digital copies, most likely on canvas, made on an inkjet printer. This way, brother and sister could enjoy both paintings in each of their homes.
“On the Douro, Portugal near Oporto”
(not the painting in question)
acrylic on canvas, 30 x 34 inches
by Robert Genn (1936-2014)
I opened the attachment and looked at two images of large originals, complex in design and swooshing with my dad’s signature greys and the painterly strokes of his brights and flats. They oozed with his passions: inclement skies, old boats, rigging, foreground rocks and scrub, dotted with his colour surprise of cadmium red and signed lower right in his personal script. I closed my eyes and saw him posted in his easel chair, locked in a state of committed mastering and love. What an endless gift the inbox provides, delivering paintings that have long left the studio and now return only to visit, with new lives, through new eyes.
“Coast Colour”
(not the painting in question)
acrylic on canvas, 30 x 34 inches
by Robert Genn
As you probably know, the copyright of visual artwork, even after sold into private or public collections, remains with the artist or, posthumously, the artist’s archive or estate. Permission or licensing is required to make reproductions. This law is designed to protect the artist, the value and integrity of the original painting and against misuse of the artwork image. Each artist’s oeuvre, including all the work held in other collections and their past, present and future provenance is in this way, hopefully, shielded from dilution or the confusion of copies. In these days of printing on canvas with inkjets, giclées can look almost indiscernible from originals. A friend once told me she knew a girl who took iphone photos of irresistible images in galleries, with plans to make personal prints for private use.
While the inquiry was meant simply as a venture for brother and sister to each share in the joy of both paintings, at the risk of disappointing, the idea just somehow doesn’t feel right. How, I wonder, to best honour the integrity of his work and to meet my obligation as the custodian of his archive to his lifelong collectors, his dealers, his champions, his heirs and all the possible, future generations who may one day share their lives with his paintings? A simpler question may be how best to enjoy his strokes, as my dad intended them to be experienced?
“Break at South Point Scottys”
(not the painting in question)
acrylic on canvas, 30 x 34 inches
by Robert Genn
Sincerely,
Sara
PS: “Art is a personal quest for quality. Quality is the forerunner of acceptance. Character is the forerunner of quality. Be your own discriminating connoisseur.” (Robert Genn)
Esoterica: “We live in remarkable times. Technology knows no bounds. Some of these giant photocopy machines put down dye-based inks, others, particulate pigments. Machines can make a million squirts a second — some work from as many as 400 different hues. I’m sure that just around the corner there’s an invention of some sort of heat-set puff-paint digital system that will load up a print with convincing impasto. Giclée watercolours currently take experts to tell the difference. Scary. But just as no machine, in spite of many patents pending, has yet been invented that gives a man a decent haircut, we will still continue to appreciate work that is thoughtfully done by hand.” (Robert Genn)
The audio letters are now ready to give as a gift!
The Letters: Vol. 1 and 2, narrated by Dave Genn, are now available for download on Amazon, here. Proceeds of sales contribute to the production of The Painter’s Keys.
“What we artists do is important stuff.” (Robert Genn)
Featured Workshop
Are you stuck in a rut? Need time to reflect on transitions? Long for an extended art-play date? Join Ellie Harold for a unique art-making retreat for women in colonial San Miguel de Allende. Re-establish flow in your life through painting, movement, soulful discussion, and a wealth of cultural, visual and culinary delights.
Art practice will encourage intuitive use of color and expressive mark-making with emphasis on process. Materials provided or you can bring your own.
An inspired facilitator and prolific painter, Ellie invites all experience levels (including none) to participate in Painting for Pleasure.
Visit Ellie’s website to learn more.
Ride the CanalsOil on Linen
40x30 inches
Featured Artist
A professional painter in both watercolor and oil for over 35 years, I have been creating plein air workshops in Europe for artists to join me since 1996. Plein air is one of the most exciting methods of painting, and I teach a very easy to learn way of capturing the light quickly, that any artist can apply to their own work during our adventures to Europe. Travel for artists is a great way to immerse yourself in painting and make great advances in your techniques by watching other professionals work, and by sharing your own ideas with other artists we all grow! Authentic locations, such as a 12th Century Castle in Ireland, a French Maison in the countryside of France, or an Italian Villa in an historic hilltop village in Italy are carefully chosen. We want our artists and non-painting guests to feel relaxed and at home, with en-suite bedrooms, excellent chef prepared cuisine, and convenient transfers to painting and exploring locations so you can be where you want to be to create. Join me on our next exciting journey!
64 Comments
Sara,
I’m so glad you did not let the owners copy your father’s work, even though it may have seemed OK to them. I agree with everything in your letter! Thank you!
–Frank
NO NO NO NO NO
Don’t do it
I agree 10000000%
They could do what 2 friends did at a recent show of my work…. switch every 6 months!?!
On the other hand, a friend recently pointed out that the families of the masters let duplicates be made ….. now it’s out of hand…. even at prestigious gallery stores, there are coffee cups, puzzles, etcetcetc with the works of masters.
Bottom line___________ at least they asked!
This was my thought as well, that they could switch their paintings every month, or 6 months, or every year. Letting them make copies didn’t seem right to me either.
Could they agree to exchange the paintings every 6 mos or so? They should also prepare now to determine the future passage of these lived paintings to prevent arguments after they’re gone. They’ll probably understand your decision – they were right to ask!
Sara,
I completely agree with Frank and Mary Beth; The brother and sister were very caring to make their request, but knowing each was viewing a ‘copy’ of one or the other would certainly diminish their enjoyment of viewing a piece of art they obviously love.
I think your father would agree.
How wonderful they each have one! As they are the same size, perhaps they could swap the paintings annually.
As a mother, I told the kids they needed to share their toys, as they could only play with one toy at a time. I believe this brother and sister need to enjoy one painting at a time, soak it in for the year and then enjoy the other one. Stay true to your father and his wishes.
I’m with Wendy Hale on this one!!
Sara, We all know that paintings need to be changed about every six months because the viewer no longer sees them. My suggestion would be for the brother and sister to swap paintings every six months so they will continue to see and appreciate them. Lorion
Unexpectedly tricky one Sara, on so many different levels.
As this couple asked permission, it shows a sensitivity to your situation. It’s not difficult for them to have just gone ahead. Would it work for you if you offered to authorise their copies once made, then noted this action on a record of your Dad’s traceable paintings.
Maybe they would like to make a contribution to an appropriate charity for the privilege.
From the many letters of your Dad’s that I have read over the years, he seemed to mind someone trying to cheat or thieve from him, but was extraordinary generous in response to a reasonable request. I’m thinking of the letter about the old chap who had pinched some paintings your Dad had stored in a shed. He insisted on getting every one back and did not give in to the brief feeling that he should let the thief keep one.
Excellent point, Jackie. It was very thoughtful that the owners asked. They could’ve done anything they wanted and Sara would not have known. That was nice of them
Exactly…they each have one and need to share. We cannot all have it all. Character… quality… acceptance – there are no short-cuts. It demands a lot of practise…
Great letter Sara. I agree with your section yo honour your father. Good suggestions here for the sublings to perhaps share by trading from time to time.
Great letter Sara. I agree with your decision to honour your father. Good suggestions here for the siblings to perhaps share by trading from time to time.
Precedent. Once you agree to allow copies for one customer, you open the floodgates. If the copy is to be made by the customer, you have lost control of the process – how can you be sure only one copy was made? How do you control the quality? Can you be sure the printer will not use the file in the future?
Option. While flattering in one aspect to have two siblings wanting to enjoy the same pieces of art, there is an easier option that retains full control over copyright – the siblings can rotate the works on an agreed upon schedule.
Your family made the conscious decision years ago not to enter the giclee market. Kudos for respecting that decision.
I support your decision. Existing law supports you as well. Honoring your father’s work by protecting it is fair and reasonable. Point made about precedent is significant. And the sister and brother will enjoy the paintings that they share all the more because they can’t see them all the time. Good of them to ask. Clearly they understood that it might not be all right. Well done on everyone’s part.
I am an artist myself. I would say go ahead and let his son and daughter each have a copy. But I wouldn’t do this for anyone but your brother and sister. (Just projecting my own feelings here) Your Dad would probably appreciate that they like the paintings so much.
Quite the awquard problem. I understand your position in this instance. I love your dads work each one a gem. Best wishes for the New Year. Jean B.
Sara, when you included the quote from your Dad, I think you confirmed any reservations you have about granting that permission. And I do like. what he said.
There is something so very compelling and engaging about standing in front of (or studying or holding, or wearing)work that someone’s hand has produced. I can’t quite put into words my feelings as I examined through glass some of Michaelangelo’s chalk cartoons at the National Gallery on Ottawa. Admiration obviously but also awe that his hand had made these very marks and here I was looking at that same paper and those very marks. There was a physical connection through time that a reproduction cannot offer.
When my Dad died one of my sisters made a throw size quilt using pieces from his checked cotton gardening shirts including some pockets some buttons and buttonholes and even a red label from inside a collar. (She loves red. Dad wore pale blues and beiges.) All four sisters love it. We take turns with it. A turn can last a year or more. I’ve had one turn. I look forward to another. How I do go on!
Anyway, I know families differ greatly but perhaps brother and sister could take turns displaying the two treasures they inherited. I think that could only enhance their affection for the pieces.
I agree that the choice is totally yours to make.
My first thought was to share by swapping every so often. The only other choice might be that you make the giclees and charge them with written paper they sign that they not sell them? Not the best choice. There is a possibility they might go ahead and make giclees themselves. So warn them of property rights also.
When asked, I have had the prints done myself and charged the appropriate amount. I do not allow others to make the prints. It works for me. And I feel I have control over my work. Good to bring this up and I am interested in reading what other artist do.
Terry makes a good point. The first question to be asked is, “What would Robert do; Did he ever make or allow giclees for customers?” If he did, in limited circumstances, you might follow his lead, but offer to have the giclees made yourself, get them framed and clearly marked as authorized and charge an appropriate price. As an artist I have a policy of not selling giclees, however, for family or very close friends I will sometimes have one made, trusting that the copyright will be respected.
Hi Sara,
Stick to your guns and see that the paintings are not copied. Each giclée that is made might otherwise have been a purchase of an original painting which would have supported the artist, not the print maker.
Your fathers work is so fantastic and his style so original (such as you describe in the letter) that it is an insult to your
Dad, his hard work and talent to be copied for such a trite reason … in my opinion.
I suggest the couple in question save a little money and try to buy two additional Robert Genn originals.
It is indeed a very complex and difficult decision to make. If I think about all the great artists that have come before us and all the prints made of their original art works, I wonder if that had not been done how all of us could so enjoy their paintings. Paintings like the Mona Lisa for instance. I have been lucky enough to travel to Europe five times and have seen many of the masters originals, including the Sistine Chapel in Rome. I own several books about those paintings and can view them through the print as often as I like but I could not travel to see the originals as often as I like. I would love to own a Robert Genn original, but as that is not possible, I would be happy to own a giclee, just to have the visual in my home. So, what do you want to have, a very limited number of people enjoying your Dads unique paintings, or the whole world seeing what your Dad contributed to the world of art? A few of my BC favorite artists are Emily Carr, Ted Harrison and E. J. Hughs. I do not own an original of any of them but I do have giclees. Just because I do not have the means to own an original work of art does not mean I don’t love to see their works on the walls of my home. There will always be people wanting your Dads work, so why not capitalize on it and let his wife enjoy the proceeds and eventually his children and grandchildren, and on. No one can create an original like your Dad though they may try. So hopefully in the future your Dads originals will hang in the museums for all to see that can and the giclees can be used to let others enjoy his works. I am sure your Dad painted to make a decent living for himself and his family, why not let prints of his works carry on to support his family. As to the couple wanting to make a single copy, get back the originals and for the right to have you make the copy, get the rights to make a limited edition of say 100 copies. That way you generate funds for the family, the couple are happy that they both have the visual copy as well as each owns an original. I figure it is a win win for all parties. I am not sure of all the legalitys but there must be professionals that can give you advice. Just my humble point of view.
I would suggest to the siblings to visit each other … often. Make painting visit dates, sit together with a glass of wine ( or beverage of choice), visit, catch up and enjoy viewing your dad’s painting. I imagine your dad would be pleased that his art brought more togetherness to their family.
A thought. Are originals devalued by copies? Second, if not, what is the value of a copy? Third, if there is value, a copyright doesn’t have to be free. If the copy has value, so the limited use copyright has a value. My observation is that quality duplicates of images reinforce the value of the original. As we all know the numbers of people who gather at the Louvre just to take a selfie next to the Mona Lisa, despite high-resolution images that are easily obtainable.
In my area, the cost of a high-quality fine art scan is between $150 and $300. Establishing a contractual copyright relationship allows the owner to control distribution and remuneration. Require a flash drive of the scan and evidence the scan file and any files used by a printer be permanently deleted. This should also be stipulated by contract. Then, should you choose, you can use the file for archival purposes or limited editions.
If you can establish a price structure for limited print runs, then the estate could continue to receive passive income in the future.
Consider the number of museums that are making their collections available on-line. The reasoning concerns continuing relevance of cultural artifacts and the recognition that even a high-quality copy is not a substitute for the original. You can imagine a conversation something like this, “is that an original?” The answer, “no it’s just a copy.” Reply, “Wow, if that’s a copy, the original must be great!”
All the best to you.
Thank you for sharing your father’s work in this newsletter about printing, Sara. His works are too good to be hidden away in palace or gallery basement to be forgotten. Future generations may never be told the fight he fought for excellence in painting. Although the subtleties of his hand are lost to this digital age, an essence is still there in the images. I say bravo Robert! You have families now fighting over wanting to see and share the images you created. What more can an artist ask. Posthumous appreciation creates demands that those left holding those remnants and memories must figure it all out. Originals are originals.
wise decision not to permit the giclee copies – as year go by, were these siblings’ estates to include both Genn originals and giclees, the possibility of orginal/copy confusion looms . . . “experts” are sufficiently flummoxed already with well-painted forgeries of originals! These art lovers do, however, get enormous credit for having asked permission – a common courtesy in the art world not common enough . . .
Interesting comments. I would be in favor of allowing a giclee with clear provision that it is marked as such and how many copies can be made, by what means and how exacting they must be. It could be slightly smaller to accentuate its being a copy. I am inclined to think that if the art speaks, go see the original but value a copy for how it also speaks to you.
On a related note concerning the thought raised in the “Esoterica” section. It IS now possible to 3D scan and print copies of paintings complete with all their texture – https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/new-partnership-yields-3d-printed-copies-of-fine-art-48068/
Yup. As I was reading here this morning, I was thinking just that. For our 50th anniversary last year, our three sons had 18 carat gold wine goblets made for us (replicas of the ones we received for our wedding), printed by a 3D printer. Quite amazing really. And in China, entire houses are actually being printed on enormous 3D printers. Who knows. Maybe humans will be printed in this manner in the future – feed in some calcium and water and cadmium pigments and voila. Perish the thought!! But just sayin’….
Verna
My reaction was a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. Somehow, it seems wrong for them to have even taken a photograph of those paintings. If the brother and sister wish to share in the joy of both paintings, would it not make greater sense for them to agree to exchange (rotate) them on a regular basis than to have prints made? Every time a painting goes for duplication, there is always a possibility that an unscrupulous individual at a print shop might decide to duplicate multiple copies of the painting and distribute them in a country or area where they feel no-one will notice. Or that another member of the family might want a copy as well. My answer would be that while I really appreciate the enjoyment they share in those painting, I feel strongly that they not make copies of them but find a way of sharing them by maintaining a ‘joint custody’ of them.
Dear Sara,
One copy leads to another, then another…. You did good!
The answer is simple; a reproduction can never take the place of an original work of art. If you are worried about reproductions, it is probably a copyright issue and has to do with someone using your efforts for monetary gain. We already have laws for that.
While I can understand not wanting to allow a third-party to duplicate your father’s work, I have a problem with never having it reproduced. If it weren’t for copies, lithographs and now giclee prints, most of the world’s great art would be lost to the public. To see a variety of great work, you would have to be wealthy and travel around the world to the multitude of museums that house originals. And every year, more and more great art ends up in the hands of wealthy collectors, most never to see the gaze of the public again. Your father’s art is worth seeing. As the copyright holder, you have the unique opportunity to create limited editions of the very best of your father’s work, so that more people can enjoy it.
The situation with the siblings is unique, however, it raises the issue of exclusivity and how the well-off can limit access to beauty through their wealth. Having reproductions has not diminished the value of any great artist’s works. Just because you can buy a van Gogh or Tom Thomson print, does not lessen the bids on their originals at auction. If anything, it increases their value as more and more of the public are exposed to their amazing art. Personally, I think your father’s work needs to be seen by more people, not restricted to only those who had the opportunity to get an original while they were available.
Definitely No Sara. This copying everything and anything you feel like and producing it for your own pleasure or commercial enterprise has to be curtailed somehow.
I remember when your Dad spent a lot of time trying to stop our work being copied in China… unfortunately a futile exercise.
Example…. sections one of my murals can be had on several fridge magnets.
Cheers,
Alan.
A definite NO Sara. You honor your father’s work with such integrity. No would be my response. Have a LOVELY DAY, Joy
Keep the finger in the dyke hole for as long as possible
Here’s my story.Back in the early 70’s as a new immigrant to Canada l tried my hand at making and selling limited editions of pen and ink drawings. But in the process l quickly ran into questions from dealers about authenticity of the edition, that were’nt easy to answer. Then l changed horses and started Intaglio printmaking thereby being able to show the cancelled printing plate after the edition was done. In those days the reproduction market of paintings was just starting, using the half tone screen method of printing. So with a magnifying glass you could tell the difference between the repro and the original. Now though it takes an expert to tell the difference.
I have been making and selling Intaglio impressions since 1973 and one of the things that l have observed is that the visual art loving segment of North American society is actually very small, maybe 5%. And this segment can be thrown off and turned away from their love of art by confusions of authenticity quickly .But l don’t know, maybe it’s a good thing this confusion over what’s original and what is’nt?
Separating the wheat from the shaft kind of stuff.
Thank you to the Genn family, l knew your Dad
A definite NO. No copies floating around means all your dad’s paintings are originals. I had six prints made of one painting I’d done. Three were already promised to collectors. The prints were not good, with some blues in the water not even close to the original. The company said it couldn’t do any better. I was sorry I had to let those three prints out of my hands. I destroyed the other three. I will never make prints of any of my work at again.
I am glad you followed your heart. The work, the relationship, and memories are precious to you, they are a part of you, and you have the privilege to cherish them, honor God, and be true to self.
You could have offered one or both of them a professional photographic print. I met an artist at Lake Louise years ago whose painting I would have loved to buy but it was $2,500. I couldn’t buy that but she offered to make phtographic prints. I think she made 10 and I bought one at $650. This way she gets money to enhance her livelihood and I get a print of high quality for one-quarter what I’d have to pay for an original. I wanted to look & didn’t have to have the picture, so I was happy & she was happy. Not the same as an original, but you can’t have everything.
Sara, I am so surprised at my reaction. I feel sad for all three of you.
Each one gets one of each, original and giclee. I think there is too much reverence for painting. There is nothing at all sacred or permanent about paintings. They deserve honest attempts at display and preservation, but let’s get real. They are meant to improve life not burden it.
My suggestion to the brother and sister: Try swapping the paintings you have now and then. Mayber half a year with one and then swap, each to the other. That way both will be able to enjoy his original works together. Only other solution is to go and visit one another often. That could be good too.
D. Veeder
why don’t they trade off every 6 months
As a purist i think you should stick to your gut feeling on this one and refuse the reproduction of you Fathers work. I think we have done a great disservice to painters by making it possible to fake their work legally. What is the point of original hand made/crafted anything if it can be copied endlessly?
Those who would support painters and encourage them to achieve excellence will soon find it a hollow gesture. Those who might achieve greater skill by working hard, will be tempted to rest on the laurels of one well executed piece, reproduced many times over. One good piece does not a great painter make??
I believe we have lost the ability to appreciate the visceral experience of seeing an original work. There is nothing like it. You have to make the effort to get out and find them but trust me, it’s worth it. I have wept in front of an actual physical master work even after years of only visiting them in books.
Supporting public galleries and encouraging private collectors to share their treasured pieces would bring a lot more joy than seeing websites or endorsing reproductions.
Respectfully
Linda Anderson Stewart
I believe that as per Canadian copyright laws…50 years after an artist/creator ‘s etc. death there is no longer protection of the copyright. This is why we can buy umbrellas and coffee mugs with master art works on them……that’s sad. On the other hand being able to buy a lovely art card can be ? acceptable.
I believe in Canada 50 years after the death of the artist/ creator their works are no longer protected by the copyright. That is why there are umbrellas and coffee mugs, etc. Ugh. with works of the masters…so sad. On the other hand it might be nice to be able to buy a quality art card.
A painting is a painting – a Giclée of a painting is a Giclée of a painting! Don’t scorn the Giclée as an artistic rendering because someone used it to reproduce a painting – it becomes a 2nd generation of the ‘Original’ – born of another medium. However, if you are a Creator of Digital Artifacts – which have their own set of original qualities – that you ‘Could Not’ reproduce – as a painting. The ‘Original Rendering’ of the 1st Giclée printed, from its Digital File, has an advantage over the ‘Original Painting’ – the ‘Digital Artifact’ in its second and all following printings – will be a perfect as it’s original! For as long as the original File is not corrupted, or, it has many backup copies. An original painting is a, “One of a Kind,” and can never be reproduced as well as it was, ‘Originally Painted.’ This is a fundamental fact that is considered – when determining the actual value of a, “One of a Kind,” work of art – be it a painting, Drawing, etc. Even the Artist of a Digital Artifact can affect the value of the first printing of their original ‘Digital Artifact’ – simply by destroying the, “Original File!” Thereafter – that Original Digital Artifact ‘Rendering’ must be copied, likely digitally, but, maybe by film, and any reproduction of that work, in the future, will be a copy of the original artwork! It’s price will be based, first, on the fact it is a, “Copy,’ – then all the other variables come into play – the artist’s fame, weather they are living, or not, size, printers – [mechanical, or human] – and the both – their reputations! The machine (is it State of the Art at time of Printing) and the Printer themselves – the reputation of their skills & experience, and their knowledge of both – the medium they work with (Giclée Printing Skills) and their accessibility to the original work of art. Then, they can only able reproduce the effect of the painter’s strokes, & match, as perfectly as possible, the color, contract, etc. The work may be so strong – it can still stand for itself (in the eyes of the beholder), but there is only “One Original.” Why are some villainous individuals, in this world, who believe there can only be value in the original? They will risk their lives – or the lives of others, and spend millions of dollars -just so they, alone, can have that original…
As an artist of Hybrid Digital Artifacts – I only have to decide if I will destroy the original file – after it has been perfectly reproduced for the first time – and the buyer agrees to reward me handsomely!
mely for the act. So far, that has never happened to me – but, I’m not Pablo Picasso – living in a Digital World…
Sorry I cannot correct the two typos my spell-check did not see, and I did not see – until this letter was printed… – bmm
In your case, you are paid for each “reproduction”. The case referred to in Sara’s letter does not make mention of money paid to the artist.
While it would be nice to have a work of art that is authentic looking, without reproducing it oneself — ie: my three children would like a copy of the painting of our two dogs which hangs in our house — that is the only instance when a copy would do. As it is, the painting is done on a gallery canvas, which, I was told, would have to be removed from the frame to be copied. That’s why there is only one – too much hassle and too much money.
Sara, how fortunate that these people each have one of your father’s works.
Sara, stick to your guns and to your instincts about your fathers wishes. Once you give a permit like this to someone, the next one can insist on it. Legally you would be on shaky ground denying somebody else the same wish. They each have one original, no copy can match that.
Sara I believe that the brother and sister should swap the paintings out every 6 months or a year so that they will appreciate each painting on its own merits and keep the copyrights intact. Don’t give them permission. Just explain how it works, what the law is. Best wishes. Gail
If somebody wants to make a copy of the original, it means that person thinks well of the painting. There are no original works that arent created or inspired by nature or through the hands of the Spirit. Thus we cant really claim anything as our own. Besides wouldnt our life be lessser had we not seen reproductions of the most famous paintings…..in calendars, in pictures, in commercials, on teacups mayhaps, multiple times…? Wasnt our curiosity awakened at having glimpsed a photo or a copy of those artworks… Sometime in our youth..? Weren’t we inspired to reach for heights our mind wouldnt have imagined was possible after we had seen those copies? How many would be able to enjoy those original copies? Probably a small exclusive number of people.
I think it’s great that the understanding of the copyright infringement us out there. I also think “no” is the correct answer.
I agree with Tina and Jackie
1 they asked…cool!
2 could have gone ahead without asking
3 anyone could download and print the digital images shared with this article
4 since the advent of the printing press, copies of anything of value have and always will be made
5 to the creator of original works, this may not sit well, i agree, but its gonna happen. Why not start a whole new business selling prints so more folks could enjoy your fathers work. At least you would be in control of the quality. Maybe some of the profit could be returned to the investor of the original…letting them take part in the value of their astute collecting choice!
6 in your music, people get to enjoy hearing you live for one event, (the original). But through your cds, they enjoy it anytime they want, (the copy). Why cant it be the same for visual creations?
STEVE YOUR COMMENTS MAKE THE MOST SENSE….THEY ARE BASED ON REALITY, NOT PURE EMOTION….ONLY A LIMITED FEW CAN SEE THE GREATEST MASTERS AT MUSEUMS ALL OVER T HE WORLD…AND IF THEY WERE NOT REPRODUCED IN BOOKS, AND REPRODUCED COPIES, MOST OF THE ART LOVERS OF THE WORLD WOULD NEVER GET TO ENJOY THEM…..EXPOSURE IS THE KEY WORD………………
In fact we can all enjoy seeing reproductions Robert Genn’s beautiful works in his book…”love letters to art”..thank goodness.
Some of the paintings are held in private collections…so even though an individual owns the original….. they are graciously being shared by Robert Genn copyright rights as the artist.
Well, that got the discussion going!!
The owners were at the very least, appreciative and thoughtful to ask is they could have “reproductions” made for their personal use, but I personally, would have to decline their requests. I might suggest the owners exchange paintings back and forth every year, so each could enjoy an original.
I definitely agree with you. I don’t think that your father’s paintings should be reproduced in any way and I’m sure that he would emphatically state NO! His works can be exchanged on an annual basis by brother and sister and they would know that there are no other copies of their original. It’s much easier to live with a “no” than to worry that your father’s works are being reproduced all over the world. Thank you Sarah, you and your brothers are doing so well at preserving and providing some continuation of your father’s letters. I so enjoy what you write!
I agree with the general consensus about declining their request but I also have a question. What is the title and size of the last painting at the bottom of the letter. It’s beautiful!
Would you consider taking control of the printing and then selling them prints? I understand the print is no original, but as is demonstrated by even your very own “Letters” posts, a copy of an image, whether it is on a computer screen or on a piece of paper or canvas, can be enjoyed by many.
Thank you for asking.
From years of reading your fathers blogs I got the impression that our father was very much protective of his work and it’s quality and sold it in the format he wanted the world to view it in. I think if he had wanted it copied he would have done it, though maybe he said something in private that wasn’t in his blogs. I say respect his decisions and don’t allow copies. While everyone thought it was nice of them to ask, I know that reputable printers won’t print any art without express written permission by the artist. As well I thought, did they offer to pay for these new pieces of your father’s art? Artists can’t be expected to just give away giclées and if they had made copies without permission and/or paying for them they would have been in fact stealing them.
p.s.- I so admire your dad’s art and his generous nature as to the information he passed on to us. I know he wanted us to succeed! what a lovely man!