John Adams wrote:
>There's a fair amount of art that simply can't be appreciated in reproduction.
I'd agree with this, but there's a much larger amount that is seen only in reproduction. That's why I like Mark Tansey so much. He plays with this way that most paintings are seen-- in textbooks and magazines-- and is more interested in what a picture says than what it does technically. That doesn't mean he ignores technique, but that he privileges drawing and illustration over abstraction.
>Does that resist the commodification of art, to make a piece which can't
>be reproduced and manufactured like a product? Or does it simply make the
>original piece a hotter commodity?
I think since the 80s both the original and the reproduction are hotter commodities. The original selling for millions and then stored away, and the reproductions selling in gift shops at museums where the originals are on loan from the collector.