Posted by John Fiorillo on January 03, 2002 at 20:51:25:
In Reply to: Re: Reproductions of Hiroshige & Hokusai posted by Simon Pieman on January 01, 2002 at 04:58:55:
Simon,
I would add that old reproductions sometimes prove to be an important source of information about ukiyo-e design. For example, some surimono are so rare that they are known only in their reproduced states (such as the copies of surimono published in the 1890s). There are also a few old reproductions of works by 18th-century artists that are unknown or at least extremely difficult to find in their original states.
As for the aesthetic value of reproductions, I agree that typically an original is superior to a copy, for reasons often discussed on this message board or on my website. I would urge all “serious” collectors to concentrate on originals. Yet I would not denigrate skillfully made copies too much, for as you point out, obtaining some of the original prints is nearly impossible for most collectors, and there is joy to be had in the ownership of finely made copies. It's not the same thing as owning an original, of course, but in certain circumstances quite a reasonable substitute.
As for old versus new reproductions, there is often a difference, for the pigments and papers are more closely matched to the originals. This is particularly true of Meiji-period reproductions (1868-1912).
John