CARA ADDLEMAN

Why prefer an original painting to an excellent copy?

The value of art is an interesting concept. It is dependent on so many factors, the large majority of which have a degree of subjectivity which renders that which makes art valuable an indefinable entity, in continuous vicissitude. However, one thing which does seem to be a constant source of value in art is originality; almost without exception, the original version of a painting will be more valued than any copies of that painting. And the same is true for virtually all forms of art; though fine art may be the most notable example, with the price and esteem difference being particularly extreme, we also see similarly higher value placed on the ‘originals’ of literature, music, theatre. If we take monetary valuation as an indicator of the ‘true’ value we place in art, we are prepared to pay more for the first edition of a book than for a recent copy; more for live music than for an excellent recording; more for live theatre than for a streaming of the play shown in a cinema. It seems evident that art, in all forms, is about more than just our sensory experience, more than just that which appears to be its primary purpose. In the case of literature, a novel is about more than just the story. In the case of a painting, it is about more than simply its appearance.Yet this conclusion engenders a further question; what else is it about?

From an economic perspective, the answer seems initially simple. While there can be thousands of copies – in fact, on principle there can be as many as necessary to meet the demand for them – there can only ever be one original. Therefore, the supply:demand ratio for an original is significantly lower than that for a copy, and thus, owing to the simple principle of supply and demand, the monetary value of an original is significantly higher. However, when considered further it becomes evident that this simply leads us back to the same question: why is there more demand for one original than for one copy? Why prefer an original to a copy?

If, for the sake of argument, we take an ‘excellent’ copy to mean one that is recreated so superbly that it is visually indistinguishable from the original – something which is more than possible in the cases of certain distinguished forgers, and becoming increasingly so owing to copying machines – then what is left to distinguish a copy from its original? I would argue that, somewhat tautologically, the answer lies in the word itself: the value of an original is in its originality.