Would you hang these on your wall? A Poll!

[Laura Corin]

I'd perhaps object to the frames, but not the pictures.

 

I have a piece of Chinese carving displayed that features a daughter-in-law breastfeeding her ailing father-in-law (an expression of filial piety), so I'm not very worried.

[DawnM]

Can you send out an email to the family and explain that these pictures aren't your taste or decor choices but you don't want them to leave the family and ask who wants them?

[Lady Florida.]

No but that's not my style of art. It's not about the nudes, it's the style. Just because it's Michaelangelo doesn't mean I'm required to like it. :) Besides, as others pointed out, they're reproductions.

 

ETA: I have nothing against reproductions. I have originals by current, living, (though unknown an inexpensive) artists, but I also have a reproduction of my favorite Monet.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[maize]

This.

I do not hang reproductions on my walls. It has nothing to do with them being nudes; I would not hang a print of Van Gogh's sunflowers or Monet's water lilies either.

 

I'd donate them, or give them to an artist friend who would like the frames.

I have a question for those who do not like prints:

 

Why is a reproduction of art so different from a reproduction of literature? Surely you do not object to owning and reading books that are not original copies in the author's own handwriting?

[maize]

OP, if you like one print better than the other you could keep that one and pass the other on. No reason they must remain a pair.

 

If you just want the memory of the person who owned them but really don't like the prints, maybe put them on your wall, take a picture, then get rid of the prints. You can look at the picture when you want a memory to make you smile. I'm not a believer in holding onto unecessary stuff that does not bring us joy and cannot imagine that your departed relative would want you to do that either.

Edited February 12, 2017 by maize

[OneStepAtATime]

I have a question for those who do not like prints:

 

Why is a reproduction of art so different from a reproduction of literature? Surely you do not object to owning and reading books that are not original copies in the author's own handwriting?

Yeah, I'm curious too.

 

I have no issues with reproductions since I obviously cannot afford some of the originals but I find the images enjoyable in some way.  DD and I both love originals and when it is an artist we can afford we do try.  Honestly, though, if I really love an image and cannot afford the original I don't have an issue with a print.  DD has several she bought and hung in her room because the images evoked a memory or a feeling that she enjoys.  They are there for our pleasure, though, not just to have prints on the wall for decoration.

[Lady Florida.]

Forgot to say in my post, I voted other. The only real no votes are sell or give back. They aren't likely worth much (though I'd find out first) as tourists can buy prints of whatever is famous in a particular location. Just because they were bought in Italy doesn't make them more valuable. I'd probably give them away, unless I could have avoided getting them in the first place.

[regentrude]

I have a question for those who do not like prints:

 

Why is a reproduction of art so different from a reproduction of literature? Surely you do not object to owning and reading books that are not original copies in the author's own handwriting?

 

Literature is about the words. It is not about how the words look in the author's handwriting - it is about their sound and meaning. So, reading a printed book still conveys the same literary experience. 

 

Art is visual. Most prints don't even come close to reproducing the original artwork faithfully: colors are different, any three dimensional aspect  (brush strokes, texture) is lost,  - and the size is different. A painting that was designed for the expanse of a chapel ceiling cannot be captured in a tiny print version. 

They are fine in a book, to view art you can't see in the original setting, to familiarize with artist and work, to study, to enjoy. I buy postcards in museums to remind myself of a work I liked. But I would not put reproductions on the living room wall as decorations. That is far from what the artist intended with his piece. 

 

Also, it is not about prints per se. Some artwork is printed by the artist - lithographies, wood cuts, etc; they are designed to be reproduced by a specific technique. This is very different from reproductions of original paintings.

Edited February 12, 2017 by regentrude

[SarahW]

If they were at all humidity proof, I'd put them up in the bathroom. 

 

Nekkid people with nekkid people. The irony would amuse me daily.

 

Match them with a few blue/tan towels and things. Done.

 

And you probably won't be putting up nice, original art in the bathroom anyways.

[I talk to the trees]

If we still had our old house with a library, I would hang them there. But there isn't really any place in our current house to hang art (other than the things we have already,) so they would have to go into storage for a while, or be passed on to another family member who could enjoy them.