Each child born to a family is unique, and often quite different. Though the procedures leading to conception may have been very different in each case the parents bring the same sets of DNA each time. There may be family resemblances but it is most likely that each child will be different, sometimes markedly. The same applies in art reproductions.
When sitting down before a masterpiece with the intention of reproducing it an artist has some advantages over the original artist. His subject will not move to scratch an itch and nor will clouds drift over a landscape. More importantly, the composition of colors and shapes will have been worked out by someone else in advance and the major challenge is to reproduce this faithfully.
Advances in technology changed the face of the art world. Before photography and machine reproduction technology artists were sought out and commissioned to paint portraits and landscapes for patrons. Much of that work has disappeared but artists have not and nor have art investments, which remain important. They are investments in rarity and beauty which are irreplaceable.
Artists producing original works from photographs, those using an original as the source of a reproduction and a couple reproducing children all have one thing in common. The outcome of their efforts will be an individual. One reproduction will not be the same as another. In attempting to reproduce the striking individuality of a great work the reproducer will have to understand a great deal about technique. He will have to capture form, color and brush strokes. In the end his work will capture the unique features of the original but in a unique way.
That is the raisin retread behind online sites that advertise art reproductions as opposed to prints or photographs. There are degrees of art behind each reproduction. Though the aim of an artist might be to faithfully reproduce what he sees before him his individual technique might put the unmistakable stamp of individuality on his work. In some respects he may prove less that the master but in other respects he may actually be superior.
After all, there is a fallible human being behind every original masterpiece. Flaws are a significant part of the difference between manufacture and art. They might kindly be called idiosyncrasies if they are distinguishing features of an artist’s work. The work of Picasso can be photographed or machine copied but its incredible value lies largely in its originality of conception and execution.
A Van Gogh reproductions could be indistinguishable from the original. The discrepancy in price could be due almost totally to the reputation and rarity value of the original. For someone who loves art and can appreciate the aesthetic qualities of a work, a reproduction could serve all the purposes of art save the investment issue.
In the art world there are those who buy paintings for their investment value and those who so appreciate aesthetic qualities of works that they long to live with them. For such people who may never be able to afford an original the option of an art reproduction is viable. It is not a photograph or print, but has all the hallmarks of two creative and original minds imprinted on it.