On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Lisa Holmes wrote:

:| Question:
:|
:| Should art work be merchandised? In your opinion do gift items such as
:| posters, mugs, tee shirts and tote bags made from art images diminish
:| the art or enhance it's status?

Answer:

It depends upon the style, manner, and quality of the
salable reproduction.  The company I work for has done several art
reproductions (ranging from the photographs of Harold Edgerton to
Audubon art from the Chicago Field Museum's rare book library) and
the challenge is always to make the final product something that
accurately displays the quality and timelessness of the original to
best effect.

I would say that merchandise treatments that attempt to compete with
the art itself for the buyer/viewer's attention (say, a
glow-in-the-dark version of the Mona Lisa, for example) diminish
the perceived value of the merchandise as well as cheapen the
original art work.  Similarly, well-intentioned reproductions that
are place on shoddy materials (a Mona Lisa printed on souvenir-grade
50/50 t-shirts as opposed to heavyweight 100% preshrunk cotton
t-shirts) also detract from both the original's luster and the
merchandise's appeal.

Finally, people want to see in their reproduction what they see in
the original, so your reproduction quality had best be very high.
This may mean selecting out certain media regardless of popular
demand (a Mona Lisa mug or t-shirt can be done, but a Mona Lisa
embroidered, applique patch might not be doable).

Given the nature of the business I'm in, I do think that art can be
reproduced to good effect as salable merchandise.  But it has to be
good art, done well, or what's the point?

Rich Johnson
Director of Marketing
Cotton Expressions Imprinted Apparel
http://www.cottonexpressions.com