What would be better for home art decor, Framed Photograph from original artist or replicated printwork?

Question

I would like to do some home decorating and I am not sure which route to take. I love the idea of having original artwork, but i like alot of classics too. I would appreciate any answers so that You can help me make a decision! :)

Answer 1

Good art is good art in any form. Just because it is in a frame does not mean it should be on a wall in your house. Choose works based upon how you respond to them emotionally/intellectually, and it won't matter if it is a sculpture, photograph, drawing, painting, etc.

Replicated printwork can look quite cheesy sometimes. Everybody knows it's not the original 'Picasso' or 'Van Gogh'. Even though you may like a certain style or scene, I would suggest going for original artwork. You can pick up bargain-priced ORIGINAL artwork at a local University or College. Students there are so talented, and are so excited to sell their pieces and get their work out to the public.

Support your local artists and purchase original works. They don't have to cost thousands of dollars, student artwork sells for a fraction of the cost because it's not sold in a gallery, and most of the time you can brag about how it is one-of-a-kind.

Answer 2

I'm a landscape photographer, and I used to work in a custom frame shop. There's nothing wrong with having a mixture of both. The way I see it, it's good to have diverse tastes; it keeps things from getting to monotonous, and predictable. I have some of my own pieces hanging on my walls, and I'm sure I'll be hanging a few Ansel Adams, and Eliot Porter pieces in the future along with a few abstracts.

Answer 3

i love original artwork and i have an annoying arrogant little habit of turning my nose up at prints (unless they are signed and numbered), but the only art on our walls is our own and that of some friends (my wife and i are artists and we hang with some very talented artists)...although i once had a touluce latrec print that was nicely framed that i liked...sad end to that: a friend came over pretty drunk one time and fell into that very wall and the picture came off the wall and the glass shattered and tore the print when it hit the floor...then he puked on the whole mess...it was a sad state of affairs that day, i discovered i didn't need that guy for a friend and that wasn't sad, but the print was sad...i suppose if you are inclined to hang with folk who imbib you might consider prints, now that i think of it...

Answer 4

If you were to fill a room with all original prints you are going to run into debt quite fast. There are some superb replications out there that are gorgeous. Whether you go with scenic prints - industrial prints - landcapes - etc., there is no reason not to use an affordable mixture of both.

Answer 5

Both are definately Ok. The classics will compliment the originals well. However, no one will be upset by a complete collection of originals or vice versa.

Also, I've found that my own photography really personalizes your home.

Answer 6

Either one would be good depending on the style of your room.

I have a mix of original art, photographs, prints, and vintage print art in my house.

Bear in mind that sometimes the frame will cost more than the photo.

Answer 7

why not both? I'm awfully glad to see that "theme" rooms are no longer in vogue....there is no reason in the world that you can have both in the same room...just make sure theres some sort of cohesion to them....I have a Renoir print on one side of the room, and a photo blown up and framed, matted, I took myself of fall trees reflected in a lake on the other. In between, well, a little of this, a bit of that...but, it all works...

Answer 8

AN original ofcourse. They're NOT kitch, like the replicated.