Pierce sells reproductions of paintings

[sparklingblue]

Brosnan alert: Pierce begins offering Limited Edition Giclees for purchase to Fan Club Members

To coincide with the release of After the Sunset, members of the Official Pierce Brosnan Fan Club can now purchase reproductions of Pierce's original painting 'Fiji'. A second piece of artwork, 'Bijou Moi', will be available shortly.

Signed and numbered personally by Pierce, these Archive Quality Limited Edition Giclees are printed on Colorspan Satin Canvas or German Etch Watercolor Paper.

A portion of the profits is directed to the Brosnan Trust, which distributes money to various environmental, children's and women's health charities.

For more information or to order please visit the Fan Club Store.

www.piercebrosnan.com

[sparklingblue]

Checked out the fan club store. Unaffordable thing for me, though I don't question its value.

***

Archive Quality Reproduction of 'Fiji' Painting

$1,995.00

Limited Edition, Archive Quality reproduction of Pierce's painting 'Fiji', printed on Colorspan Satin Canvas or German Etch Watercolor Paper. Signed and numbered personally by Pierce, each Giclee is accompanied by a certificate of authenticity. The reproduction process has been designed to produce a piece of artwork virtually indistinguishable from the original.

'Fiji' is limited to 999 numbered prints on both canvas and paper. All reproductions are offered in the original size of 24" x 24", and are shipped unframed.

Please note - canvas giclees require stretching over frame.

Please allow 4-6 weeks shipping time on this item. Signature required for delivery.

[Barbara]

I realize this is what his art is worth, but they have made a huge mistake. Only the wealthiest of his fans can afford that, and I personally don't know any.

What they should have done is a set of notecards with his artwork.

-- Barbara

[sparklingblue]

I totally agree.

[Yuliya]

Actually, I question the price as well. It's the price of fame, not the price of painting. You're still only going to get a fake. They may call it a copy, but it's a fake. Real artists who respect their work don't do that. They paint limited edition copies sometimes, and that does mean limited - 2-3 at most. Kinkade, of course, on the other end of the spectrum, prints them in industrial amounts.

PB is actor, not an artist, I understand that's it's for charity, yadah, yadah, yadah, but those are still just overpriced fakes up for sale on his site. As just as Barbara pointed out, most of his fans can't afford that. Selling posters of his work might collect more money and IMO will be less tacky. But that's just me. I wish him luck in collecting money for whatever charities he support.

[Steeleinc]

Canvas giclees are expensive, but I gather they look like originals. The one I've seen of Ashford Castle is around $225 and is gorgeous, but I can't afford it.
I certainly don't object to PB offering giclee prints of his paintings, but it would be nice if he offered something his average fan could afford...notecards, posters, etc.

They've archived the Paris Home Movies, so maybe the web site is getting ready to add some new stuff.

Debra

[Ace]

Art is worth what it's worth, or worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Whether it be fame, reputation or skill. Plenty of art priced in the millions is stuff I wouldn't pay 5 cents for but others would pay millions for, so it's worth millions. I've seen limited prints (in the hundreds or thousands) of art priced just as high or higher. And as Debra pointed out this reproduction process isn't a cheap one no matter the subject.

Considering he often spends years on one work I don't think his painting limited copies of his art would be feasible in regards to time. And he evidently doesn't want to sell his originals which would go at auction and have at far higher prices.

It would be nice if they'd also sell postcards or posters in addition to t-shirts, but they might in the future.

Ace

[Yuliya]

I don't object to PB selling copies of his paintings. I don't even object to Kinkade selling copies of his, er, whatever, although in his case I object to the quality of the work.

I merely express my opinion on what those copies are. I've never seen canvas giclees, but I don't believe they are as good as originals. They may look a lot like them but they're copies. If you buy a copy of something that's in a museum, it doesn't cost thousands of dollars. Why when you buy a copy of something that's made by a celebrity it does?

I don't question what PB does, especially since it's common practice, especially if he does it for charity, but it doesn't make me think any higher of the objects he sells to raise money. There's nothing dishonest about such copies, but IMO the concept is tacky.

[Yuliya]

Everything's worth what it's worth, and a few newsstations will pay quite a bit of monety for a tape of an execution. Personally, I don't think artists should copy their work. Sorry. I guess it just goes against my moral standards. Not because it's wrong or dishonest but because of what such copies are. I guess I'm weird that way. I can appreciate copies of antique jewelry or furniture, but not paintings, maybe because I know more about painting than jewelry-making.

I wouldn't mind having a few postcards of PB's paintings, mind you, and if I do, I'll probably hang them as well. What I mostly object to is making an essentially cheap object into something expensive. A copy is a copy, it's cheap and should be as cheap as the copying process allows. You want to add some money to support your favorite charity? Fine. Canvas giclees may be expensive, but not over $1000 per copy, and no matter how expensive it's to make, the result will still be a copy, and copies are cheap - not in price but in value. Why put high price on a cheap item? A poster or a postcard don't pretend to be what they aren't; an expensive copy - does.

[Ace]

Sorry, I just can't agree about the morality of painting reproductions. If you know it's a reproduction then you know. I don't think an original painting is intrinsically more special than an original piece of jewelry, stained glass, furniture etc. All are artistic creations. And copies and reproductions of them are just that. But all copies and reproductions are not of the same quality. There are good ones and there are mediocre or poor ones, in art just as in furniture, jewelry etc. And you pay for that difference in quality. Or you don't, depending on whether you think it's worth it.

Ace

[Yuliya]

Well, in case of paintings, I don't. I don't think it's amoral, but it still offends my moral standards. Maybe because I don't view paintings as something made for design purposes. Everything else is, paintings aren't. They're objects of art and that's that. And each one of them is unique. If I had studied jewelry-making for years, maybe I would have been just as offended by cheap copies of Faberge eggs, who knows. As it is, I can accept and appreciate copies of jewelry or furniture reproductions, but not copies of paintings.

[sparklingblue]

I was a bit puzzled that PB would sell reproductions of his art. I always thought that you would make a reproduction to hang up in a museum if the original is in another country, damaged or otherwise unavailable. But maybe I just have the wrong notion of it. To me it seemed more logical to sell prints or postcards. For one because it's less pricey, and also because it seems more like common practise, for instance in "shops" in art museums.