Frontiers in Art Research, 2023, 5(8); doi: 10.25236/FAR.2023.050819.
Zhang Fang1, Sun Zhongmei2, Xue Qilong3
1Institute of Basic Education, The College of Arts and Sciences Kunming, Kunming, Yunnan, China
2Yunnan Arts University Attached Arts School, Kunming, Yunnan, China
3Institute of Fine Arts, Yunnan Arts University, Kunming, Yunnan, China
The academic circle is often negative about artwork reproduction and its products, but in fact reproduction has always followed and influenced the development of art as an undercurrent. This paper identifies three periods of time: the period of promiscuous creation, the period of derogatory reproduction and the period of technological reproduction. It is further argued that contemporary artwork reproduction is the reproduction of creation or the creation of reproduction, breaking the paradox of fate between the two, gaining a new perception of reproduction and an independent quality of authenticity, and acquiring a new meaning of creativity with the value of vitality at the aesthetic, production, dissemination and acceptance levels.
Artwork Reproduction, Creation, Creativity, Authenticity
Zhang Fang, Sun Zhongmei, Xue Qilong. Creative Research on Artistic Reproduction. Frontiers in Art Research (2023) Vol. 5, Issue 8: 101-107. https://doi.org/10.25236/FAR.2023.050819.
[1] Sally Pulis. Primitive art in civilized places [M]. Xiangyu Liu, translated. Xiujian Li, edited. Beijing: The Publishing House of China Literary Federation, 2018.
[2] Xin Nan. Art theory of the era of technology replication——Another interpretation of western art theory in the 20th century [J]. Humanities Magazine, 2009 (06): 107-112.
[3] Zhang Hui, & Xiang Yong. Research on the Value of Art Reproductions in the Context of Consumer Society [M]. New Art, 2013.
[4] Lipman M. Contemporary Aesthetics [M]. Deng Peng, translated. Beijing: Guangming Daily Press, 1987.
[5] Li Tingwen. The revelation of Goodman's view of artistic language——composite art, mechanical reproduction and original authenticity [J]. Southeastern Academic, 2018 (3): 8.
[6] Pan Zhibiao, Li Danyuan. Replication characteristics of the contemporary cultural industry [J]. Academia, 2010 (3): 122-128286.
[7] Tang Hongfeng. Art and its reproduction —— from Benjamin to GRoyce [J]. Literature and Art Research, 2015 (12): 98-105.
[8] Sándor Rádnóti. The Fake: Fogery and Its Place in Art [M]. Rowman&Littefield Publishers, inc, 1999.
[9] Ian Haywood. Faking it: Art and the Politics of Forgery [M]. Yin Lingyun&Bi Xia, translated. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2017.
[10] Zhang Pengchuan. Iconographic Study on the Night Entertainments of Han Xizai [M]. Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2014.
[11] He Ming, Hong Ying. Back to Life: Reflections on the Development of Art Anthropology [J]. Literary Review, 2006 (1): 83-90.
[12] He Ming. The Vision of Art Anthropology [J]. Journal of Guangxi University for Nationalities: Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition, 2009 (1): 9.
[13] Peng Fei. Is plagiarism also an art? In 17 "rooms" challenge "copy and"[Z]. 2018-10-26. http://www. sohu. com/a/271526367_232931