merchimerch

marrus is a talented artist living in New Orleans who is fighting an uphill battle to be allowed to sell prints of her own works in the French Quarter. I met her many years ago when I was living in Venice with

nisaa and

stevefava and she and her partner came to visit. It was a trip to experience her biting personality and hear her take on art and the world. I always enjoyed the works of hers that hang in nisaa and stevefava's house. When I took my new job, one of the first things I did was buy a print (from http://www.marrusart.com) to hang in my spanky new faculty housing apartment.

Anyhow, in New Orleans, there's apparently some kind of law on the books prohibiting artists from selling anything other than "originals" in certain areas of the city. This is asinine in so many ways, and I've been following the drama on marrus' live journal. Recently she posted an article from a New Orleans periodical that discusses the issue and I couldn't help but comment. Here's the link http://www.neworleanscitybusiness.com/viewStory.cfm?recID=30732, and below is my comment pasted here so I can remember what I said.

We live in a world full of objects that are reproductions and simulacra. Refusing to let artists sell reproductions of *their own* work is socially counterproductive. It seems like an elitist move on one hand, since it privileges those who can afford to sell only original works of art. On the other hand, it very possibly cheapens the quality of the originals that are offered, if artists are expected to churn out enough to make a living wage solely off the sale of "original" works.

If an artist paints or draws the same piece over and over again because the subject sells, then they are technically creating originals, even though the work is probably shoddy because of the necessity of self-created mass production.

In my mind, it is better to let artists do deep creative work and painstakingly create an original that they love, then use the blessing of technology to quickly and cheaply reproduce it. I don't believe that consumers experience that much of a difference in terms of perceptive and cognitive appreciation when viewing a well-made print.

Also, at what level are prints not allowed? No lithographs? What about wood block printing? It is all art, regardless of reproduction, and a reproduction of a great piece is far far preferable to an original yet derivative piece.

Allowing artists to sell prints is a way to help art continue to stay relevant in our society. We need them on the avante guard, pushing at our preconceptions and comfortable definitions. If they need to make prints to make a living, let them. At least they are making a living as artists.