Copies of Artworks: The Case of Paintings and Prints
In his essay on imitation in the arts, Adam Smith considers that the exact copy of an artwork always deserves less merit than the original. But the hierarchy between copies and originals has changed over time. So has the perception of copies by lawyers, philosophers, art historians and curators. The development of a market for copies is part of a wider contemporary questioning of the boundaries between originality and copy. We analyze whether and how the various actors in the art market (artists, collectors, lawyers, curators, art historians and philosophers) contribute to valuing and creating or, at times, to killing copies. Artists and collectors have never belittled copies. Art historians think that copies have an important role in preserving the memory of lost artworks, and in educating young artists, but nevertheless consider copies better left to the reserves of museums. Lawyers are ambivalent and judicial precedents bear testimony to the ambiguous legal status of copies. Contemporary art historians and art philosophers have influenced curators and museums to organize exhibitions that make use of copies, giving them a new life.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
|This chapter was published in: ||This item is provided by Elsevier in its series Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture with number
1-08.||Handle:|| RePEc:eee:artchp:1-08||Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookseriesdescription.cws_home/BS_HE/description|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gene M. Grossman & Carl Shapiro, 1986.
NBER Working Papers
1876, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Gene M. Grossman & Carl Shapiro, 1988. "Foreign Counterfeiting of Status Goods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 103(1), pages 79-100.
- Françoise Benhamou & Victor Ginsburgh, 2002.
"Is there a market for copies,"
ULB Institutional Repository
2013/1687, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Johnson, William R, 1985. "The Economics of Copying," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(1), pages 158-174, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:artchp:1-08. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.