Tuesday, May 18, 2010

May Flowers

A while back, I wrote about how photography is the new painting. It was probably something you should read about here. Anyway, today, I was again reminded of how much our digital (and analog) devices warp the world around us while at my trusty gallery day job. I was looking for information about the work above to the right, the hot pink Warhol flowers. After doing a little research on the piece, I discovered it actually looked like the picture on the left, more of an orangey-coral than a fuchsia. When a work relies on one single specific color to differentiate itself from hundreds of other, it seems like good, true to life artwork photography would be a priority for those dealing with the piece. But good artwork photography is hard to get and digital images degrade over time (just like paintings) so distortion continues to be a problem.

I'm still backed up here at F***ART, and have yet to post about the May auctions or my recent viewing of the short film 16 Minutes with Ultra Violet, but stay tuned for more posts soon, I promise!

Also, a side note: what species are Warhol's "flowers"? He obviously chose the image as quintessentially floral, but no amount of googling seems to yeild me with an answer as to what this most-floral of flowers is. (The fact that it's a pretty blown-out image doesn't help my search either)

5 comments:

  1. great article here, thx for sharing"
    http://evocowire.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i believe these are different warhol prints

    ReplyDelete
  4. they are actually the exact same piece according to the catalogue raisonne numbers that the warhol foundation assigns indivually to each specific work. i saw the work in person then looked it up in the catalogue and thought "my god, that looks nothing like what i've just seen!"

    ReplyDelete