What is a ‘Good’ Copy of Edvard Munch’s Painting? Painting Reproductions on Display

Joanna Iranowska

doi:10.3384/cu.2000.1525.179138

Authors

Joanna Iranowska University of Oslo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.179138

Keywords:

Reproduction, Artwork, Edvard Munch, Museum, UV-print, Valuing

Abstract

Paintings in museums might occasionally be replaced by a photoprint mimicking the original. This article is an investigation of what constitutes a good reproduction of an artwork (oil painting) that is meant to be displayed. The article discusses what the usefulness of reproductions depends on, applying the Valuation Studies approach, which means the primary concern is with the practice of valuing itself. In other words, the study focuses on how museum experts evaluate reproduc-tions of oil paintings. The article analyses three cases of displaying digitally prin-ted copies of Edvard Munch’s oil paintings between 2013 and 2015 in the Munch Museum and in the National Gallery in Oslo. The study is based on a series of semi-structured interviews with the experts, working at and for the museums, that were involved in producing and exhibiting of the photoprints: curators, con-servators, museum educators, and external manufacturers. The interviews were grouped into five clusters, which I have chosen to call registers of valuing following Frank Heuts and Annemarie Mol (2013). The described valuation practices have to do with delivering experiences to the public, obtaining mimetic resemblance, solving ethical aspects, exhibitions’ budget, and last but not least, with the time perspective.

References

Exhibition Reviews

Bhar, Oda (2013): “Fargerik bredde”, Dagsavisen, 01 June 2013, 54.

Christiansen, Per (2013): “Munch er siste skrik”, Adresseavisen, 01 June 2013, 6.

Elton, Lars (2013): “Anmeldelse av «Munch 150»: Munchs parademarsj”, Verdens Gang, 01 June 2013: http://www.vg.no/rampelys/kultur-og-trend/anmeldelse-av-munch-150-munchs-parademarsj/a/10110581/, (accessed 2016/05/20).

Gjessing, Mona Dorothea (2013): “Munch gjennom marg og bein”, Klassekampen, 03 June 2013, 20.

Jansen, Vegar (2015): “En følelse for Munch”, Tek.no, 17 October 2015: www.tek.no/artikler/en-folelse-for-munch/193498, (accessed 2016/10/06).

Krogvig, Ingvild (2013): “Har vi ham nå?”, Morgenbladet, 14 June 2013, 40.

Otnes, Pål (2015): “Ta på Munch”, Fotografi, 14 October 2015: www.fotografi.no/arkiv/ta-pa-munch, (accessed 2016/08/10).

Stormo, Roger (2015): “Munchmuseet med bilder for blinde”, Sign og Print, 20 October 2015: www.signogprint.no/2015/10/20/munchmuseet-med-bilder-for-blinde, (accessed 2016/08/10).

Valmot, Odd Richard (2015): “2,5D-print gjør det mulig for blinde å føle Munchs malerier”, Teknisk Ukeblad, 15 October 1015: www.tu.no/artikler/2-5d-print-gjordet-mulig-for-blinde-a-fole-munchs-malerier/275867, (accessed 2016/05/05).

Østvang, Toralv (2015): «Se kunst med fingrene», Computerworld Norge, 19 October 2015: www.cw.no/artikkel/print/se-kunst-med-fingrene, (accessed 2016/10/06).

Films

Canon Norge as (2016): “Taktile utgaver av Munch-malerier blir til og lanseres!”, Canon Business channel on YouTube, 5 January 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdLUDDsQZ9Q, (accessed 2016/02/03).

Steen, Tonje & Rafaelsen, Lise (2015): “Slik har du aldri sett Munch før”, Dagbladet TV, 14 October 2015: http://www.dagbladet.no/video/HZ8RADFTsRk, (accessed 2016/05/05).

Vartdal, Åsa (2015): “Munch for blinde”, NRK Dagsrevyen, 13 October 2015: https://tv.nrk.no/serie/dagsrevyen/nnfa19101315/13-10-2015#t=33m21s (accessed 2016/05/05).

Interviews

Interview with Curator 2, Munch Museum, Oslo, 6 November 2015.

Interview with Conservator 1, Munch Museum, Oslo, 10 August 2016a.

Interview with Conservator 2, Munch Museum, Oslo, 10 August 2016b.

Interview with Printer, FotoPhono Imaging, Oslo, 10 Mai 2016.

Interview with Curator 1, National Gallery, Oslo, 19 February 2016.

Interview with Educator 1 and Educator 2, Munch Museum, Oslo, 21 April 2016.

Literature

Angrosino, Michael (2007): Doing Ethnographic and Observational Research, Los Angeles: Sage. DOI: 10.4135/9781849208932

Boltanski, Luc & Thévenot, Laurent (2006): On Justification: Economies of Worth, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Boon, Marcus (2013): In praise of copying, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Christensen, Hans Dam (2010): “The Repressive Logic of a Profession? On the Use of Reproductions in Art History”, Konsthistorisk Tidsskrift, 79, 200–215. DOI: 10.1080/00233609.2010.509550

Eggum, Arne (2000): Edvard Munch. The Frieze of Life from Painting to Graphic Art, Oslo: J.M. Stenersens Forlag.

Foster, Sally M. & Curtis, Neil G. W. (2016): “The Thing about Replicas - Why Historic Replicas Matter”, European Journal of Archeology, 19, 122-148. DOI: 10.1179/1461957115Y.0000000011

Gagliardi, Pasquale, Latour, Bruno & Memelsdorff, Pedro (2010): “Introduction”, Coping with the Past. Creative Perspectives on Conservation and Restoration, Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, XV–XVII.

Guleng, Mai Britt (2013): “The Narratives of the Frieze of Life. Edvard Munch’s Picture Series”, Guleng, Mai Britt, Sauge, Birgitte & Steihaug, Jon-Ove (eds.): Edvard Munch 1863-1944, Oslo: Skira, 128-139.

Helgesson, Claes-Fredrik & Muniesa, Fabian (2013): “For What It’s Worth: An Introduction to Valuation Studies”, Valuation Studies, 1, 1–10. DOI: 10.3384/vs.2001-5992.13111

Hennion, Antoine (2015): “Paying Attention: What is Tasting Wine About?”, Berthoin Antal, Ariane, Hutter, Michael & Stark, David (eds.): Moments of Valuation: Exploring Sites of Dissonance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 37–56. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198702504.003.0003

Heuts, Frank & Mol, Annemarie (2013): “What is a Good Tomato? A Case of Valuing in Practice “, Valuation Studies, 1, 125–146. DOI: 10.3384/vs.2001-5992.1312125

Kotler, Neil G., Kotler, Philip & Kotler, Wendy I. (2008): “Atracting and Managing Donors”, Museum Markeing & Strategy: Designing Missions, Building Audiences, Generating Revenue and Resources, San Francisco: Joessey-Bass A Wiley Imprint, 215–231.

Latour, Bruno & Lowe, Adam (2011): “The Migration of the Aura or How to Explore the Original through Its Facsimiles”, Coover, Roderick (ed.) Switching Codes: Thinking Through New Technologies in Humanities and Arts Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 275–297.

Lowe, Adam (2010): “A Note on the Unveiling of the Facsimile of Veronese’s Wedding at Cana”, Gagliardi, Pasquale, Latour, Bruno & Memelsdorff, Pedro (eds.): Coping with the Past: Creative Perpestives on Conservation and Restoration, Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, XII–XIV.

Mol, Annemarie (2002): The Body Multiple. Ontology in Medical Practice, Durhmam and London: Duke University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822384151

Mori, Masahiro (2012): “The Uncanny Valley”, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 98–100. DOI: 10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811

Rectanus, Mark W. (2002): Culture incorporated : museums, artists, and corporate sponsorships, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rousseau, Manuela (1998): “Promotion of the arts, business sponsorship of the arts”, Oslo: Norges musikkhøgskole, [1998], 102-107.

Stevenson, Angus (2010): Oxford Dictionary of English, s.v. ‘register’. In: Stevenson, Angus (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thevenot, Laurent (2002): “Which Road to Follow? The Moral Complexity of an ‘Equipped’ Humanity”, Law, John & Mol, Annemarie (eds.): Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 53–87. DOI: 10.1215/9780822383550-003

Taussig, Michael (1993): “Contact”, Mimesis and Alterity, New York: Routledge, 52–57.

Valuation Studies (2013): www.valuationstudies.liu.se/About/, (accessed 2016/09/16).

Volle, Wenche (2013): “Edvard Munch’s Exhibition at Kunsthandlung P. H. Beyer & Sohn in 1903”, Kunst og Kultur, 194–205.

Volle, Wenche (2014): “The Architecture of Edvard Munch’s Frieze of Life”, Arrhenius, Thordis, Lending, Mari, Miller, Wallis & Mcgowan, Jérémie Michael (eds.): Place and Displacement. Exhibiting Architecture, Oslo: Lars Müller Publishers, 141–152.