"PRANG'S AMERICAN CHROMOS. 'THE DEMOCRACY OF ART' . . . Our Chromo Prints are absolute FACSIMILES of the originals, in color, drawing, and spirit, and their price is so low that every home may enjoy the luxury of possessing a copy of works of art, which hitherto adorned only the parlors of the rich."
Prangs marketing strategy here was to make the average person feel that when you purchase his art prints, you were some how "leveling the playing field". You might be working in the factory of some rich capitalist, but you have a "piece of art" that until now only he could afford! It's much the same marketing strategy as the "Giclee" prints of today, which is an overpriced name for a digital inkjet reproduction art print.
But the question is; Is a small inexpensive copy of a painting or drawing really the same thing as having the original? (The original is still hanging in the rich guy's parlor, by the way.)
My view is that a piece of art is a unique expression of an idea. When multiple mechanical copies exist of a piece of art, not only are they not going to hold the same value as the original, but it somehow cheapens the original too.
What are your feelings?
