The painting may be displayed in a museum in Paris – but thousands of people across the world can enjoy the same masterpiece in the privacy of their homes for a fraction of the cost of the original.

How many times have you entered an art gallery, experienced an immediate connection, but felt your heart plummet at the prices? Despair no more! If you cannot afford to buy an original, you could still take home something that will help trigger that aesthetic ‘experience’ again. Reproductions are ubiquitous all over Europe, where you can easily find Monet’s prints on canvas or paintings from Picasso’s blue period reproduced on hardboard. “Works of art, by their inherent nature of being unique, are impossible to own by more than one person. Reproductions allow many to enjoy a work they are not able to own,” insists Geeta Mehra of Sakshi Gallery in Mumbai. “The painting may be displayed in a museum in Paris – but thousands of people across the world can enjoy the same masterpiece in the privacy of their homes for a fraction of the cost of the original.”

Popularising art by making prints or posters is not new to India. Consider the cheap prints of Raja Ravi Varma’s paintings, condescendingly created by using the new printing technology of his time to ‘educate’ the masses about art. Available for Rs. 200 a decade ago, today the same prints would fetch nothing less than Rs. 5,000 each! The Ravi Varma prints exhibition, held earlier this year at Phillips Antiques in Mumbai, drew a good response. “These prints have become popular in recent times because they are old, hence in limited supply; they are by Ravi Varma, a recognised painter; they are attractive and colourful, hence popular as decoration; and finally, they are relatively expensive and in fashion today as a form of ‘kitsch’,” explains gallery owner Farooq Issa.

Posters of contemporary Indian art, made by the Lalit Kala Academy, have been around for years… and some of them line the stairway to Pheroza Godrej’s Cymroza Art Gallery in Mumbai. “Making prints of contemporary Indian paintings or collages is good for popularising an artist’s work,” acknowledges Godrej, who has herself bought Ravi Varma prints (for Rs. 200 each) and an Amrita Sher-Gil poster (for Rs. 100). “It also makes it affordable. I would definitely buy a print of a contemporary Indian artist’s work if it appealed to me. But if the prints are of a limited edition, it adds value – especially if each one is numbered and signed by the artist. Some may call it kitsch, but I think it is a way of introducing a whole new audience to the experience of owning art.”

When original paintings are unavailable or unaffordable, architect Alfaz Miller buys reproductions, for himself and his clients. He welcomes this trend – “provided good work is selected and the print quality and medium is of the highest standard. If the artists endorse limited edition prints of their works, they are affordable and serve the visual needs of users,” he maintains. Pratiti Basu Sarkar, chief administrator of the CIMA Gallery in Kolkata, is equally enthusiastic: “I think it’s a wonderful trend, for it reflects an awareness and appreciation of art in daily life. Hopefully, it will lead to a more informed art market with defined tastes, and build up art connoisseurship.”

While artists like Sunil Gawde and Brinda Miller look forward to the possibility of their artistic efforts being multiplied, the colours and textures in their paintings would probably best be highlighted by digital printing on canvas – although Sarkar considers such a process dangerous, as it could look deceptive. “A reproduction on canvas could look like a painting,” admits Miller. “However, there are limitations in terms of depicting the collage and impasto techniques that I use in my work.” Although the same goes for Gawde’s work, he is wary of prints that look like the real thing. “There are chances of losing the original audience,” he warns, adding that originals are on a different pedestal. “My work is not flat… it has a physical texture. The printer should come up with an idea of how best to match the original. Graphic artists and printing experts bring technical solutions to match the print quality with the original. Artist’s proof prints are the best solution.”

A few years ago, Sakshi Gallery held an exhibition of S.H. Raza’s (signed and numbered) prints on canvas, and the response from corporates was especially good. “Once the wheels of technology are in motion, there is no holding back,” declares Mehra. “There is a natural progression towards exploiting the technological know-how at hand.” An art connoisseur and promoter who enjoys reproductions of her favourite works of art, she is no snob… and freely admits to deriving pleasure from them – be it posters, screensavers for her PC, or postcards.

Through her gallery, Godrej has also sold reproductions. While posters of Akbar Padamsee’s work (large, Imperial size; unframed) were available a decade ago, more recently Cymroza has sold Jatin Das’ signed prints (Rs. 1000; three years ago) and Arpana Caur’s posters (Rs. 300 to 500; last year). While saluting such a trend, Savitha Hira of Pradarshak Gallery in Mumbai strikes a note of caution: “The charm of a reproduction lies in it being a limited edition – otherwise, for all you know, every other person who appreciates the work of art in question, has its print… and you lose the joy of possessing it.” After all, part of the pleasure of acquiring a work of art is because of its uniqueness, and arbitrary reproductions would detract from it.

Recently, some signed prints on canvas of Raza’s paintings were sold for around Rs, 50,000 – when an original by the same artist would cost Rs. 8 to 10 lakh. “If a painting has a texture, the best reproduction would be on canvas,” agrees Godrej. “When the print is done digitally, the image has to be screened – and the artist’s signature indicates strict quality-control.” But there are certain disadvantages that need to be kept in mind. “We don’t know how long the printing ink will last,” she points out. “There could also be a colour change of the canvas or the ink used for printing, whereas oil paint lasts for at least 1000 years.” Another disadvantage is that more copies may be made without the artist’s knowledge, and there could be an attempt to pass off these reproductions as originals after forging the artist’s signature. “That is tantamount to cheating!” exclaims Godrej. So, buyers of art need to be aware of what is happening.

The value of a print lies not only in the number of the edition, but also in the artist’s signature. While Mehra personally prefers serigraphs that are well executed on good quality paper with quality inks (like the limited edition reproductions of M.F. Husain’s works exhibited by Sakshi Gallery in October 2002), she maintains that “reproductions on canvas have any kind of value only if they are in a limited edition, each signed and numbered. In order to make the proposition viable, the artist’s consent must be available.” Copyright laws would be applicable if the artist has not given his or her consent. And since the “art community” is small, word is bound to get around if reproductions are being sold without the artist’s consent.

Paris-based artist Sujata Bajaj feels that it is better if younger artists concentrate on their original work while searching for their identity. And both Miller and Gawde believe that a print should relate to the work in question. “Most artists are agreeable to their artwork being made into prints,” observes Sarkar. “They perceive it as promotion, and also as a way of entering into the lives and homes of the middle class. The very rare artist objects; if so, it is because he feels it would dilute his creative expression.” Business-savvy artist, Jaideep Mehrotra, considered a pioneer in the field of computer-generated ‘paintings’, says he would definitely not make prints unless he had a sponsor – in which case, he would get his works copyrighted prior to the printing and transfer that cost to the sponsor. “There is no real advantage to the artist, except maybe publicity,” he believes. “Misuse of the painting is the obvious disadvantage, and that would mean a loss of sale as well.”

But would it? One wonders whether the sale of original art could really be affected by prints. Sujata Bajaj’s personal preference is to buy the original work of younger, emerging artists rather than a reproduction of a painting by an established artist. “An original painting is more alive, and it is easier to build up a relationship with it,” she declares. Well, she should know. “Despite the availability of reproductions, artists will not lose their buyers – as the person who buys an original painting is a collector and will always buy originals,” says Godrej reassuringly.

Finally, Mehrotra himself reinforces the fact that – prints or no prints – there will always be buyers of original art, when he confesses that he is still blissfully unaware of an audience who appreciates art but cannot afford it! Case closed.