I think it is fine. How else to honor the painting? I think the kiss is more often seen and if it were me I wouldn't use something that is over used already.

I think it's fine to use whatever you like in your house.

Coming from a non art buying family how do you hang them and make it not feel like a museum?

Maybe I should just mix them with my 4 year olds drawings.

This caused quite a brou haha when I discussed it a few months ago. A lot of people thought it was ridiculous for a grown up to use a print of a famous art work, and that such things were passe outside of dorm rooms.

I did it anyway. I have "The Great Wave" framed in my beachhouse DR. Palimpsest suggested a pair of Great Wave flipflops on display as well to show that i get the joke.

I guess it depends on how dumb your guests are. If they are very fancy and smart, perhaps they will think you are gauche. If they are dumb, they may simply admire your artwork, : )

Oh thats why I missed the boat from the earlier discussion. Im sure it seems simple, but I wasnt sure how to use this or other prints without seeming pretentious. So I'll mix it with DD's fingerpaints and out old wall maps. The house will be pretty eclectic anyway.

Thank you.

Are you going to get it as a poster or canvas? People most likely will recognize it as a Klimt, but it's not one of his really well-known paintings (like The Kiss, for example). Display it with a stethoscope :)

I'd use not well known replicas of famous artists' works but prob not a really famous one like Mona Lisa. Then again, in a tongue in check vignette, ML would be ok.

I think the Klimt is pretty "decorative" and not as iconic as say, the Mona Lisa. (Which only became really famous after it was stolen.) I would mix it with other things.

I have a whole collection of mass-market prints (Keane), but they are hung with a sense of irony, I guess.

Hope this isn't too OT.

Last month I went to a Turner exhibit and bought the official exhibit poster: Ancient Rome: Agrippina Landing with the Ashes of Germanicus. I love the colors and thought of replacing the Ansel Adams Denali print in my breakfast/dining room with the Turner.

Is it kosher to trim off the exhibit stuff they print (date, location, etc.)?

I would. I think I would like it better as a print rather than a canvas. You're not trying to fool anyone that it's the original, so it's not the same as carrying a fake designer bag or something.

Iowa, it's Helvetica in a couple of different weights. I'm indifferent because it's so omnipresent these days. I just don't think I need it. Plus, it's a blue border that got picked up from the sky. It's only on the sides and bottom and not a color found anywhere else in my house. Although this could be a first. :)

ETA: It was on sale and I paid $5.99, if that makes a difference.

I think if you display it like a priceless work of art with an ornate frame and special lighting in a prominent place in your home then you are heading towards the tacky side.

I have a very small canvas replica of Van Gogh's Postman that I enjoy because it reminds me of a great family trip when we went to go see the painting. It is stuck on the corner of my kitchen desk and hopefully my kitchen company will not think that I am trying to pass it off as the original.

You can always mat over the print/border without cutting it.

None of these was a famous original but a client of mine had everything from an original to a limited print or two, to a print that was on foam core that was an advertisement for an event, from a place where she has a vacation house, and we treated them all the same frame wise and mat wise. It doesn't really matter that the advertisement was probably worth $2 and the framing was $150, it worked as part of the whole collection.

Wondering what everyone's thoughts are on Audubon prints used in décor. We have The Princeton Audubon Edition of this print framed and hung.

http://www.audubon-prints.com/product/snowy-heron/

The only original artwork that I have is stuff I have found in consignment shops by unknowns or something purchased from local artists while traveling.

I can't bring myself to put any art on my walls that you would find at Bed Bath & Beyond although I am sure they have had Audubon poster framed and sold there.

Audubon was always meant to be sold as portfolios of prints, so my feeling is that that's different. They were meant as copies.

I have a framed poster of the Hunt's the Lady of Shallot in my powder room. It was the inspiration for the color scheme and I love it. I don't really care whether people recognize it or not. It's a piece of art that so spoke to me the first time I saw it in RL that I had to have it in some form.

I suppose if the art work were as iconic as the mona lisa or a warhol soup can, I would feel differently. At some point, people don't expect it to be an original, and that's ok. But, for example, I love escher and would have no problem displaying prints of his work.

Life is too short...do what you like! :)

I would not have the Mona Lisa in my living room, but it's not my favorite picture. I do have some reprints of famous paintings (mainly outdoor scenes) but if I like it....I put it on the wall.

And I would also trim off anything I didn't like on the poster/print. Unless it's going to make it worth more, why keep it? It will probably look better without it.

I have a
few copies of Albert Bierstadt...one in my office and one over my living
room fireplace. I love them and spent more for the frames and
non-reflective glass than the prints :)

Linelle, I think the "fancier" or more "arty" people's houses I've been in who used exhibition prints actually deliberately kept the exhibit informaiton on display. If I had to guess why, maybe because it differentiates it from a dorm poster and makes you seem "classy" for having gone to the exhibit. I'm using a lot of quotes because I'm not sure how I feel about the practice personally, just sort of relaying what I observed. I collect a few music show posters and of course the date/time is an important part of the poster. Somewhat related: the art of the poster.

Robo, I totally agree with you. I think it's implied that I went to the exhibit and I suppose that confers some cachet. Never mind that I traveled the staggering distance of 50 miles and can probably buy the poster avec exhibit info online. I definitely get that it matters for concert and/or play posters because when and where make a difference. My poster is just an inexpensive reproduction.

I do like Pal's suggestion of covering the border with matte, although it will make for a deep matte, not always a bad thing.

I have a framed poster of an angel from the Vatican over my mantel. I believe the original is a fresco so no possibility it's the real thing.

I have Frans Hal's "The Laughing Cavalier" on the wall going up the stairs to the upper level of my cape. It looks like an ancestor portrait.

http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=64959

I took down the Ansel Adams and taped the Turner in its place. Nope, not there. Put the Adams back and had a little sigh of relief. The Turner will get mounted on foam core and go somewhere else.

I have an oil paint copy of a Fantin-Latour still life. Like all legitimate copies, it is not the same dimension as the original.

I have a framed and matted print of Van Gogh's "The Courtesan" at the end of a long hall. I bought it at an exhibit, but it wasn't the exhibit poster. It just fascinated me; it was painted to look like a Japanese woodblock print. The frame is black high gloss; it looks like lacquer. Oh, and I don't care if it's tacky; I like it.

I have 2 large framed Maxfield Parrish prints that were wedding gifts to my grandmother in 1925; two framed William Heaton Cooper prints purchased in the Lake District; a Rembrandt etching reproduction purchased in Amsterdam; and a tapestry of Klimt's The Kiss. I have displayed them all at various times and probably will again!

As long as it's on paper and not canvas, and it isn't the Mona Lisa or The Kiss, I think if you like it, it's fine. In most cases I think a framed poster of something museum quality looks much nicer than a piece of "art" printed on canvas someone bought at home goods.

Delilah, I wish I had a place to put a Maxfield Parrish print ;)

Get what you like and never, ever apologize for it. And that is kswl's Gospel of Art, lol!

^^This^^

Also, I agree with the old MOMA posters that say "Art doesn't have to match the couch".

If it makes your heart soar or pound, makes you smile, brings back happy memories, gives you peace, excites you, calms you, inspires you, it can and should hang on your wall. If it simply matches your decor without evoking emotion or thought because it's just a pretty picture, not so much.

there was never an uglier woman on canvas...

Heretic!!

Not only do I find the Mona Lisa fascinating, but I find the suspected Isleworth Mona Lisa even more fascinating.

IAC, I'd not have her hanging in my house though. (Actually we did inherit a B&W print of her many years ago and have since tossed it.)

kswl's "Gospel of Art" is right on. And those mean-looking old Dutch dudes make me think of my fierce-looking Native American warrior paintings. Not everyone's cup of tea, to be sure, but I find them fascinating and I love living with them on my walls. I believe I am therefore practicing what you are preaching! :-)

I've had exhibition posters hung as art - some of them are extremely attractive.

The real issue is whether I like it or not.