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."

paint, authenticity, and you

[girlintraining]

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.

But in Australia

[tepples]

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.

Re:Before you discount Pollock out of hand...

[girlintraining]

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...

Okay, look. I did a term paper on him. I'm not dismissing him out of hand, I'm dismissing him after a detailed analysis of his work. 25% of my grade for Art History depended on me being able to offer a detailed analysis of his work. Ignoring the fact that of all the artists that we drew straws for (well, strips of paper), and I got the short one... I think I can speak authoritatively on Pollock's work.

Anyway, I don't feel what Pollock was doing constituted high art. While you're right in that the process itself introduces design elements, intended or not, I consider the will of the artists and the technical proficiency by which he (or she) goes about realizing that vision to be the primary elements of artistic merit. Pollock was "on to something", sure, but he never developed it to a usable and proficient level... and neither has anyone else.

I'll tell you the same thing I told my professor (who begrudgingly gave me a 'B' on the paper, and asked me and only me to defend my essay in front of the whole class!), which is that if I were to show Pollock's work side by side with the paint drizzlings of a 5 year old with a brush asked to run back and forth across the canvas... how many laypeople could tell the difference? I argued that everyone has an innate sense of design, and while people's tastes may differ, almost all pieces of art display some level of consideration -- that is, the will of the artist. It isn't just a random hodge-podge of work. Even the Dadaists were very deliberate in their choice of "anti art", and it is this will, this force of personality, which I feel Pollock lacked. He was engaging in method without vision, and that, I feel, isn't art. Several of my classmates agreed. For something to truly meet the standard of artistic expression and to have artistic merit, academically or otherwise, there needs to be a clear expression of the artist's desire in the work. Other than perhaps the choice of color for the paint, I do not feel the layperson could find this expression in any of Pollock's exhaulted works.

As I concluded at the end of my Q&A with the professor (did I mention how unhappy he was with me?), one does not necessarily have to be a success in the art world to be famous... the Titanic is a very famous ship precisely because it sank. And if you ask me, Pollock is that era of American art's Titanic. There is perhaps merit in his work, but only in how miserably it failed; If you ask me, his work should be used as a warning to other artists not to get so lost in the abstract that your work becomes a random jumble of design elements.

Re:If you haven't seen the paintings in person...

[wbr1]

I paint some as a hobby, and Van Gogh is one of my favorites, as is Dali. The thick paint technique you are referring to is called impasto. When done well it adds depth, texture and -real- shadow/shading (that changes with the light) to a painting. It is a very difficult thing to do well IMHO. In addition it adds quite a bit of weight to the canvas, and the different layers of paint can separate, making the entire painting much more fragile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impasto [wikipedia.org]