Art has become a thriving sub-culture on social media, with thousands of copies of famous artworks constantly circulating. The problem? The lack of consistent fact-checking — by everyday users as well as top search engines. Sadly, platforms that might have educated and inspired new art lovers have instead fostered a pattern of misrepresentation and error that has undermined the integrity of authentic work. Here are some details, plus suggestions on ways to achieve a balance between availability and accuracy.
The majority of fine art images found online these days are photos of commercial reproductions. Sadly, most commercial reproductions are the result of rushed, market-driven, and poorly monitored copying techniques that leave little room for accuracy. The fundamental value that society has long attributed to art is quickly being undermined by the mass marketplace, where prettiness frequently is preferred over authenticity, and where there are few protections against false claims, errors, and misleading advertising.
The reproductions themselves aren't the core problem, however. The real issue is that, once an image of a reproduction becomes detached from its original sales listing — which it does almost immediately — there's no indication that it's a photo of a modern copy. Which means that it falsely presents itself as a faithful image of the original.
WHAT ARE COPYISTS ACTUALLY COPYING?
Reproduction houses rarely use real-world artworks as their models, and in fact, often don't even work from verified photos provided by museums, galleries, or other reliable venues. Frequently, modern copyists use photographs of other vendors' products as their models, or select random images from online searches, which are rarely reliable. Although some of these modern painters at least enlarge photos to provide more detail, that isn't always the case. In fact, videos from one reproduction company show their artist copying tiny photos from a smart phone. The accuracy of an artwork produced under those circumstances is dubious.
Of course, the sale of art reproductions is a standard practice, well established over the centuries. For example, the image above is from a 1963 British Pathé film that showcases one company's pre-digital reproduction technique — a so-called "secret process" in which shop artists "over painted" stretched copies of famous artworks while imitating the original painters' typical brushstrokes. It's difficult to know how successful these artists were, but at least the company was attempting to provide the public with faithful copies — within obvious limitations — and consumers who purchased the products probably had been exposed to the originals elsewhere.
In recent years, however, the Internet has permitted a previously unknown level of proliferation, without much quality control. It's common for consumers to learn about artwork from unqualified reproductions, and to associate an artist with these questionable copies rather than with the artist's authentic body of work.
EVERYONE'S AN ARTIST
A growing percentage of art reproductions are being created by individual entrepreneurs new to the prospering art marketplace. None of these small-scale operations are monitored in any way, and as a result, online listings often contain visual and factual errors that remain undetected by consumers.
It's common for these reproductions to be sold both as newly painted canvases and as art prints, and for the images to appear on a broad range of products such as tee shirts, mugs, towels and notecards. For marketing purposes, photos of these products are usually replicated on multiple social media platforms, massively propagating any mistakes that might have crept into the modern copies. As mentioned above, attractive images might even be used by other vendors — without verification or permission — as templates for their own contemporary products.
NOT A KLIMT!
One of the more distressing aspects of the reproduction boom is that, occasionally, an original piece by a current artist is mistaken for the work of a famous painter, usually due to the fact that the well-known artist is mentioned in a listing as having inspired the new creation. When that happens, the contemporary piece, despite being under copyright and listed for sale at the artist's website, often gets hijacked by both mass-market art vendors and small-scale sellers. These third-party vendors then unknowingly (and illegally as it turns out) market the work using a "public domain" attribution, without notifying or compensating the true creators.
Although seasoned art lovers probably aren't fooled by modern homage artwork, the general public often is, which can lead to financial and ownership issues that have few legal precedents and therefore few established remedies.
THE REPRODUCTION ISN'T AT THE LOUVRE
Most reproductions are captioned as though they were the originals, with the past work's creator, title, date, and current location. But that information is false. For example, the painting seen above isn't located at the Louvre. It's located at the artist's home in Serbia. Similarly, it wasn't painted by Leonardo da Vinci, doesn't date to the 16th century, and so forth.
Common practice has been to assume that any information attached to an art image refers to the original painting, and that the authenticity of the photo itself — and what it actually depicts — is irrelevant. However, the lack of any further disclosure suggests that the photo is a faithful representation of the work in question. Which is rarely the case. By comparison, a factual caption that clearly describes the modern source of a particular reproduction is much more informative, and helpfully alerts viewers to the fact that, if they wish to gain true insight into a particular artist's work, they might need to look elsewhere.
HOW FAR IS TOO FAR?
Some modern paintings, although only loosely based on the originals, still call themselves "reproductions" and fail to mention the extreme changes that have been made to the original artwork. For example, the contemporary painting below has been seen in many places captioned as Renoir's In the Garden of the Rue Cortot, Montmartre, yet even a casual inspection reveals that the new painting has rearranged all the elements of the tall original in order to fit a shorter frame, and — as might be obvious to anyone familiar with Renoir's work — has completely altered the coloring and brushwork. A more accurate description of this new painting would be In the Garden of the Rue Cortot, inspired by Renoir.
SEEING THE WHOLE PICTURE
Another way that reproductions can mislead viewers is by offering a product that's a detail of the original, without indicating that the painting doesn't show the entire work. In the example below — Camille Monet and a Child in the Artist's Garden in Argenteuil, by Claude Monet, 1875, located at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston — the reproduction (possibly an art print based on the museum's photo) has used only the section immediately surrounding the two figures, in the process also chopping off the artist's signature. Since the watermark clearly indicates that it's a modern product, it might be argued that no additional disclosure needs to be made. However, online art lovers who aren't familiar with this particular painting often assume that the square version is a faithful representation, and usually don't bother to ask whether or not there's more to the original painting.
HOW ABOUT MUSIC AND LITERATURE?
In the visual arts, artworks are easy to alter, replicate and circulate online without encountering challenges. But the same loose interpretations wouldn't be acceptable in other types of creative pursuits. For example, suppose someone re-wrote a famous book, using the basic story line and much of the original text, but added chapters, removed sections, created new language and quotes in certain places, changed the basic personality of the main character, and so forth. And then published the book online with the original book's title, author and date — without mentioning the changes that had been made, or that they themselves had made the changes — simply presenting the work as the original. My guess is that the modern version would quickly be unmasked as a fake, and wouldn't get very far in the online universe.
This sensitivity to change also permeates the classical music world, where deviations from a composer's original work are well known, spotlighted and discussed as a matter of course. Alterations to known compositions — even when considered permissible within the limits of a performer's individual interpretation — are rarely left unmentioned.
Despite the lack of forgiveness in other fields, major artistic distortions are widely accepted when it comes to famous paintings.
Art reproductions can play a significant role in education and art appreciation by introducing newcomers to inspiring pieces from the past and by shedding light on the history that has influenced our contemporary culture. Affordable modern copies make visual art more accessible to the general public, and allow everyone to benefit from creations that are normally tucked away in distant museums and private collections. But this only holds true for reproductions that faithfully represent the original artworks on which they're based.
Well-researched, expertly executed copies account for only a small percentage of artwork on the market these days. Most reproductions come from less dependable, less qualified sources. Therefore, it's a good idea to get into the habit of checking images before sharing online, and to create, though experience, a list of reliable sites that can be used both as sources and for verification. For more on finding accurate art photos, see Top Sources for Fine Art Images.
Corrections or suggestions?
A well-researched art resource that can help you find accurate images and spot altered copies. 100+ listings and growing daily. Browse at random, or search for something specific. Special requests are welcome.
Disclaimer: This blog is intended for entertainment purposes only. Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information provided, the material included here should in no way be considered the final authority on any issues discussed in the text.