February 7, 2024
Here's a variation on an ethical and commercial question which the Supreme Court recently ruled on against Andy Warhol in the Prince photos he painted on.
At What Point Does Does 'Fair Usage' Infringe On Art Value?
Here is the Original of "Alto!" and the Art Print Which I subsequently painted on.
and "Alto!" The Art Print version with tweaks
I always want to improve on old artwork. It's a blessing and a curse. I often find half-finished—and even finished pieces!—in my morgue and give them a few needed strokes. In this case, I didn't like it that the lead horse, at far left, was a tad underdeveloped in the original and I also thought the whole scene needed to be tightened up by making the foreground more dark and neutral. So I scanned the original painting and printed it out on art paper so I could paint on it. First off, I gave the bandito on the rock, at top right, a little more definiton (you can see his rifle barrel now) and I darkened the dust a tad to hopefully give it a more dynamic and dusty punch. Did I succeed? Not sure, but that is the eternal quest that results from the endless desire to improve the scene.
Now, if I was going to sell these two as originals (and they are both originals), is the price reduced because there are two of them? Yes, probably. Or, do I sell the original for $1,200 and the modified art print for $75?
The artist, formerly known as Prince got an answer from the Supreme Court, but the artist known as The Duke of Dust, is standing by for answers.
"Art is anything you can get away with."