Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Technology

Van Gogh Prints In 3D: Almost the Real Thing For $34,000 104

Posted by timothy
from the I'll-take-the-poster-and-the-change dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Van Gogh Prints In 3D: Almost the Real Thing For $34,000

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, come on... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @05:23PM (#44665873) Journal
    "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?
    • by Intropy (2009018)

      Only one comment and it's exactly the one I would have made. It's not to knock the technology or even complain about the price, since they're still clearly in the recovering R&D costs phase. I wouldn't mind spending a couple hundred dollars on something like this if the claims of accuracy hold up in person. But that's never going to happen if you're limiting the supply to 260 copies worldwide.

      • 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'
        • by devman (1163205)
          Don't need a EULA, copyright already restricts you from making copies of the copy. With one of these You bought, effectively a high quality print, you didn't buy the original with the right to make and sell your own prints.
          • by SydShamino (547793) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @08:48PM (#44666693)

            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.

            • Even with an EULA, it would be unenforceable on a work for which you hold no copyright upon which to exercise that EULA. The closest they could come is renting/leasing out the replicas with certain terms included.

              Surely you don't think the EULA on Windows XP will be enforceable on copies made 150 years from now, do you? Regardless of how many times one hits the button to "accept" it.

          • by Intropy (2009018)

            Van Gogh died over a hundred years ago. The copyright has long since expired.

            • by Meski (774546)
              Copyright on the 3d data used to produce it? I'm not saying this is copyrightable, but it might be what they'd use in court.
        • Yes, the statue of David is a great work of art and there are plenty of good quality copies. I just don't want one in my house. It's a good way to raise money for the museum so I don't really see a problem, they will most likely release a bigger (cheaper) batch in the future and the "exclusivity" will become all about the serial number. Personally when I've spent a couple of hundred on "real art" it's been from "unknowns", I choose it because I like it, it's genuinely unique, and there's always a slim cha
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Museums have always limited access to paintings. They are no longer under copyright, so what they do is refuse to let anyone take pictures or in this case 3D scans. Then they sell those pictures, because they're under copyright. The fewer the sell, the higher the price. Try pulling out a camera in a museum sometime, you'll be jumped by guards. If they let you take a picture, you own the copyright on the picture. Public good, my ass.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        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.

        • But in Australia (Score:4, Informative)

          by tepples (727027) <{tepples} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday August 24, 2013 @05:54PM (#44666015) Homepage Journal

          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.

        • 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.

          • Meh, I saw all of Van Gogh I needed to in "Vincent and The Doctor".

            Besides, given the title, "Van Gogh Prints In 3D: Almost the Real Thing For $34,000", I was expecting a story about a high end 3D printer.
          • by rpstrong (1659205)

            ...like the famous Sunflowers painting - they have fairly tall ridges and brushwork all over the place.

            What you said. I once saw 'Sunflowers' at the Norton-Simon museum. It was mounted on the wall, with a plastic (or glass?) plate covering the entire thing, mounted about half an inch from the surface of the painting. I had the opportunity to eyeball it from only inches away. The brushwork is astounding to see up close, and seeing it like that gives you a different appreciation for the picture over all.

        • Van Gogh's work is notable in its use of the third dimension. The paint stands off the canvas, and the texture of that paint is a significant part of the effect of the work. For most artists a good 2D print is good enough, but Van Gogh is an exception, and that is why the museum chose his work as their first use of this technology.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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

    • Perhaps they are looking to recoup some of the investment by doing limited-edition runs. The process itself is probably pretty pricey as well. If that puts the price tag at 22k GBP, then that's where the "nonsense" comes in. I suspect that fewer people will pay 22k for a "3d printed replica" than will pay that for a "limited edition, museum-approved Relievo".

      Of course that won't last. The museum will probably start selling scaled down replicas at more affordable prices, and when that happens it won't
    • Its about money. There's no other reason to make an effort in anything in this world other than to gain extra cash.
      • by mean pun (717227)

        Its about money. There's no other reason to make an effort in anything in this world other than to gain extra cash.

        Well, that is factually incorrect. There are still some people left in this world that have other motivations than worshipping the almighty dollar (or other currency of your choice). But I'm sure there is a reason we don't count.

      • Its about money. There's no other reason to make an effort in anything in this world other than to gain extra cash.

        That's part of my confusion, though: 22k and limited edition of 260 seems high by the standards of altruistic motives (even if the fancy 3d printing really does cost the full amount, which wouldn't be beyond the realm of plausible, the limited edition is clearly artificial); but seem quite low by pure cash grab standards.

    • The original reason for limited-edition prints wasn't driven by marketing. The stone or wood block would physically degrade with each print, and after a certain number of runs, the drop in quality was clearly visible (why earlier editions tend to be worth more)

      With digital reproduction, this just isn't a factor any more, and limiting the production run is pure marketing; creating an artificial scarcity to inflate the price.

      Most of this announcement is just empty art jargon; the elite paying lip service to t

      • 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.

    • by Seumas (6865)

      Also... selling for $40k a *REPRINT*... because "it would otherwise be worth tens of millions"... ... no it wouldn't... because they're reprints.

  • by SerpentMage (13390) <ChristianHGross@yah o o .ca> on Saturday August 24, 2013 @05:34PM (#44665911)

    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.

    • For a tenth as much I could pay a copyist to produce a better version.

    • by Cyberax (705495)
      I bet it'll take about 1 second to detect a forgery (just look for pixelation with a looking glass). Besides, there are tons of artists who specialize in reproductions and can create a painting that is VERY close to the original, using real pigments and sometimes even pigments that were used in the relevant period. My family owns several such reproductions and they are damn good, if they were not clearly marked as reproductions they would have required an art expert with analytical equipment to distinguish
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24, 2013 @05:36PM (#44665933)

    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.

    • by westlake (615356)

      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.

      The most recognizable Van Gogh in the Met's collection is "Starry Night."

      If I understand the process correctly, these are digital photographs overlaid on 3D models of the canvas and brushwork. They are not built up layer upon layer as paint on canvas would be. That is why they are headed to the up-scale shopping mall and not to the gallery that specializes in hand-crafted reproductions.

    • Consider how many people have prints on their wall (our house has four and six original works).
      What percent of my wealth went on those (small).
      What percentage of a muli-millionaire fortune is 22k?

    • by wbr1 (2538558) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @07:04PM (#44666271)
      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]

    • by stenvar (2789879)

      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.

      And thanks to the way the van Gogh museum restricts access to the scans and issues only 260 overpriced copies, most people will never get to see these paintings, or replicas, in person either.

      • by rve (4436)

        And thanks to the way the van Gogh museum restricts access to the scans and issues only 260 overpriced copies, most people will never get to see these paintings, or replicas, in person either.

        The van Gogh museum has a lot of works by van Gogh, dozens, maybe hundreds, but none of the ones people actually want to see. The nice ones are in private collections, or in famous musea in New York. You see, the van Gogh museum was founded with the works that the van Gogh family (read: Theo's widow) wasn't able to sell, even after creating the hype around Vincent after his hysteric death.

    • I'm no art guy, and never seen a real Van Gogh, but I had a similar impression from buying a cheap fake in a Vietnamese market in Ho Chi Minh city. These are pretty shoddy copies done by street artists but the fact that it's real paint with real texture makes them much better than any print.
    • 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,

  • by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @05:40PM (#44665947) Homepage

    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?

  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @05:49PM (#44665999)

    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.

    • by bdwoolman (561635) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @06:23PM (#44666111) Homepage

      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. [wikipedia.org] 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.

      • by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @06:59PM (#44666249)

        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.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          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?

          Interesting you should ask this. I read about a study that was done some years ago where they did just this -- imitation pollocks vs the real thing, shown to laypeople in a double blind study who were asked which they preferred. The Pollocks were overwhelmingly preferred. There's more than just imitatible randomn

        • 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 o

    • by wbr1 (2538558)
      Indeed GIT, sitting with a great painting can be a wonderful experience. My last museum foray however was the national gallery on a weekend. Not exactly quiet sitting time. I still remember studying a priceless Monet, then seeing a 9-11 year old boy that was a little hyper for an art museum come with inches of falling into it, hands first with hands that looked like he had been digging in the sand and mud on the mall.. The whole time his mother was oblivious, blathering away on her phone. I bet she po
    • by westlake (615356)

      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 painting does not come from the easel. I prefer to tack the unstretched canvas to the hard wall or the floor. I need the resistance of a hard surface. On the floor I am more at ease. I feel nearer, more part of the painting, since this way I can walk around it, work from the four sides and literally be in the painting. I continue to get further away from the usual painter's tools such as easel, palette, brushes, etc. I prefer sticks, trowels, knives and dripping fluid paint or a heavy impasto with sand, broken glass or other foreign matter added. When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well. --- Jackson Pollock, My Painting, 1956

      Pollock's finest paintings... reveal that his all-over line does not give rise to positive or negative areas: we are not made to feel that one part of the canvas demands to be read as figure, whether abstract or representational, against another part of the canvas read as ground. There is not inside or outside to Pollock's line or the space through which it moves.... Pollock has managed to free line not only from its function of representing objects in the world, but also from its task of describing or bounding shapes or figures, whether abstract or representational, on the surface of the canvas. --- Karmel, 132Jackson Pollack [wikipedia.org]

      Pollack made an intense study of paint and canvas. Introducing random elements drawn from physics and mathematics into a work of art does not mean that you have lost control.

      Once you've spent some time with a Pollack in a gallery you shut up about dripping paint on the floor.

    • You sound like you're really into art, which is at odds with my impression about Pollock's work.

      Namely that it's not really for regular people, it's for artists, because it says something to them about the nature of art. Like Cage's 4'33", or that painting that is all black lines and colored boxes.

      Which means that I think it is art for artists and as a result probably gets too much press. Blue Poles shouldn't be able to play in the same sandbox as Guernica. They're both big paintings, but as far as I can

  • 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 [3ders.org] and a price of € 25,000 (about US$ 33,500) for each replica.

  • Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jtownatpunk.net (245670) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @06:13PM (#44666079)

    If I have $34,000 to spend on an art, I'm going to buy a genuine art, not a reproduction.

  • Big Deal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @07:30PM (#44666351) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • outrageous (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stenvar (2789879) on Saturday August 24, 2013 @08:08PM (#44666495)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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 t

  • by DerekLyons (302214) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (retawriaf)> on Sunday August 25, 2013 @12:09AM (#44667489) Homepage

    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.

    Only being able to produce three a day doesn't mean the technology is complicated, it only means they don't have enough machines.

  • by Megahard (1053072) on Sunday August 25, 2013 @12:29AM (#44667571)

    Did he print himself an ear?

  • by jasno (124830) on Sunday August 25, 2013 @02:45AM (#44667975) Journal

    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 [nortonsimon.org] and cover an entire wall of a room from floor to ceiling...

  • "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)

  • by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Sunday August 25, 2013 @03:43AM (#44668105)

    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.

  • by Dyolf Knip (165446) on Sunday August 25, 2013 @08:24PM (#44672687) Homepage

    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.

It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)

Working...