Got a Question? Ask here!

[kellyscolorstudio]

I have to say that I find that gluesticks don't hold either! I use Aleene's tacky glue. Of course I know that everyone has to find that one thing that works for them...we're all different. I'm not sure that Aleene's is archival, now that I think about it, but I know one thing...if it's stuck with that, it's NOT GOING A N Y W H E R E!!!

[seafog]

Marci, I hope you get some relief fast. and Linda, hoping also that things are working out for you and this week is looking brighter.

[bryali_1]

Well, I have OOAK in most of my painting listing as I created them and at this moment have no intention of making prints of any of my paintings. If it comes to a point where I decide to start making prints, then I'll do it from the work I'm creating at the time I decide to make them. OOAK accurately describes my present work, so it works for me :). To me, it does mean that it is "one of a kind" and that you won't even find a print of it in existence...its the only one. Not sure if it attracts buyers and not sure if others feel the same, but that is my interpretation of it.

[surreal1st1cp1llow]

Alishia... your understanding of what you do is absolutely correct and right-on... your interpretation is not bad either... I know about these interpretation things... ask T... we used to breed them... you see we were trying to breed a true interpretation... but unfortunately before we could achieve a true interpretation of the species... the little suckers broke out from their chains of thought and escaped out into the world... and so it goes... interpretations spread out all over the place... and thus more than likely the reason for all these different interpretations. But of course most interpretations are cuddly and friendly and mean no harm!! One must of course be cautious of those interpretations that are quite nasty and have a vicious bite... in fact... dare one say... look out for your................................. BALLS!! DISCLAIMER: All direct statements are sincere... all general statements... are well... rather general... and all interpretations will most likely and if not probably be interpreted anyway... so remember... just have fun and keep true to the OOAK!!

[kellyscolorstudio]

M&T do you drink city water, or? I want what you're having!

[gooddealhunting]

I always apply my mathematical mind to discerning if something, like a rule, is logical or not. Mathematics is, of course, founded upon logic. Rules are defined by "if, then" statements and once, during the proofing process, an exception to the rule is found, the logic is proven to be false and it becomes dead in the water, logically. So I pose to you this: At some point, there is the probable chance that you will no longer be the copyright holder of your art. It could be a descendant of yours or someone who otherwise has it transferred to them. That said, what if they can make prints? That is a true probability. Your wishes are no longer considered. Assume a print will exist in the future and the use of the term OOAK is logically flawed. Even the possibility, foregoing the probability, is enough to falsify or flaw logic, and therefore the use of OOAK as it applies to an image is flawed. There is absolutely no way to guarantee that your original art cannot be printed. As long as it exists, this possibility is there. Thus, my logic. If an image, then a print. OOAK is out the window as a true descriptor. JMHO, of course. Something to consider. -- gdh -- Edited by gooddealhunting at 04/29/2008 9:27 AM PDT

[bryali_1]

Very good point, gdh! M&T--ha!! Not quite sure how you guys come up with all this stuff to say--and I must admit that sometimes things go over my head!! 😉

[mazoommzee]

crikey charlie! The possibility, even the probability, of my ability to understand the aforesaid - above -is nil. Nevertheless, well said gdh.

[frontporchgallery]

Thanks Kelly and Tessa for bailing me out on the picture resizing.. Sorry to be such a big DUH! --

[kellyscolorstudio]

Ruby it's fine! Glad to be some help! 🙂

[papermatthew]

Please feel free to ignore me... Apparently I am in the mood to argue today... Interpretation of "One of a Kind" is all semantics and all objective, so there is no definite right answer to that question, but its always fun to argue semantics. As the Bene Gesserit Coda says "The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth", so I love a good argument when arguing with others who argue well - and I often find that my truth is changed by other's arguments (I hate to leave an argument where all sides don't agree, even though that rarely actually occurs.) Of course, I use the word "argument" here which many people find heavily negatively connotative, but I mean it on its more denotative level as "debate" (but I couldn't throw in a "Dune" reference if I said "debate"...) All of my paper sculptures are one of a kind, whether there are digital representations or printed representations of them or not. A print is not a paper sculpture. A digital image on a screen is not a paper sculpture. Those things are an image of a single direction view lit from a single direction captured from a moment in time in the life of a paper sculpture. The "image" I sell as a print doesn't even actually exist in the "real world" except at the moment the picture is taken. The paper sculpture's "kind" is paper sculptures and the print's "kind" is prints- and there is only the ONE paper sculpture. Even a 2-D piece of art has tangible differences from a print or digital projection. An original manuscript of a published text is still one of a kind, even if its been printed 10,000,000 times. I've looked at maps and phtographs of Athens, but it doesn't mean I've been to Greece. There is only one of ME in the world no matter how many pictures of me exist, and no logic I can think of can convince me that a picture of me IS me and therefore makes me not the only me there is (but I would LOVE to hear that POV argued convincingly - that would definitiely be an interesting change in the nature of my truth!). The OOAK nature of a thing doesn't imply that nothing else can convey an image of the idea in a different format, it implies that nothing else exists in the same state as what is described as OOAK. To convince me that a printed image of an original artwork invalidates the original's one of a kind nature, you would have to convince me that a photograph of ME is ME and that the Map is the Territory. 10II

[seafog]

Wow Ten-Two, that's great. This probably has nothing what-so-ever to do with subject at hand, but my mother, bless her heart, used to get so miffed at the 50s-era Revlon tv slogan which said "If it's the finest of its kind, it's by Revlon". Every single time she heard it, she would correct it for them and to the television repeat, "If it's the finest of its kind IN COSMETICS, it's by Revlon!"

[gooddealhunting]

I won't ignore you Matt. It is true to say that each one of your paper sculptures is a OOAK, unless you mass produce very similar pieces. Inherently, any artwork is original, otherwise it would be deemed a craft. The argument becomes different if you switch it up and start talking about an image of your paper sculpture and, then, I would think that you could have an original image of your sculpture, but then if you duplicated that original image you would have a print. I think it is true to say that someone could mass produce an item, ship one out of the factory and then have the factory, along with the contents, blow up off the face of the planet. What was once one of many, is now OOAK. It is arguing semantics, but semantics exist for a reason. Try telling an artist that what they are creating isn't art, but a craft. Then chalk it up to semantics and see how far it goes. -- gdh

[kellyscolorstudio]

I'm becoming even more confuzzled than I already was. Is. am. whatever.

[papermatthew]

That would be a fun form of art - building a factory, producing an item and then blowing up the factory! I wonder if anyone has done that before... It's like making printing plates, printing something and then destroying the plates - but on a whole nother level! Matthew Ross, 10II

[gooddealhunting]

Hahahaha, Matt! I might give that one a try. *tapping desk with pen* Now... where to get a factory... -- gdh