What I'm wondering about today is whether something called "art" or a "painting" can actually be a hybrid. Let me explains. One of the things I enjoy doing is die cutting using a die cutting machine. Although I have several, my mainstay is a Silhouette Cameo. The Cameo cuts files, normally .SVG files. Here's a screen capture of some of my .SVG files.
Most of these particular files are intended to be cards, but not all. Also, if you look at the fish and the crabs, they are shown in multiple colors. This means that you cut all the pieces in one color from one piece of paper in that (or another) color and then assemble them to make up the multi-colored image. Got it? Good. Now, take a look at the image highlighted in blue. I wanted to paint a background and put the die cut out of the tree and frame over top of it. Here's what I had in mind. The photo is the image I wanted to paint. The red lines show the lines that will be cut when I put the paper into the Cameo. I cut the .SVG file twice--once on white paper and then on black paper to see which I liked better. (The white one won.)
Next, I needed to paint the image. Here is the result. (Note, this is an abandoned house in the area of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge south of Cambridge, MD.)
Obviously, this is a painting. However, does it remain such when I add the die cut overlay? That's my question. If not, then what is it? And how should it be presented? Matted like a regular watercolor? Placed in a shadow box with some space between the die cut and the painting? Certainly, I could turn this into a card but that would certainly decrease the value of the work since the painting, alone, would sell for $30 upward. (It's about 5" x 7.") Who in their right mind would pay that much for a card? No one I know. So, what do you think this is? Is it still art or something else? And what should it be, both definitionally and commercially? And last but certainly not least, do you like it with this treatment or do you prefer just the painting?
