The New "print" Category

I personally think that limiting the category 'print' to only handpulled techniques would be a huge mistake, one that would not only confuse non-artists, but send an unprofessional signal to galleries.

The distinction is a pointless one, really, since the word print includes photocopies, printed books and even footprints in stone left by long extinct creatures. Giclee's are a kind of print, so are photographs. We don't insist that only paintings created with a brush are called paintings, why muddy the water with unnecessary and false distinctions for other kinds of end product?

The term "reproduction" carries something of a negative connotation; not extreme, but present none-the-less, and would only serve to devalue the giclee' prints that painters and people who work in dry media produce. Surely it isn't necessary to downgrade the value of other methods, techniques, mediums - after all, what other negative comparisons could be made?

Da Vinci is quoted denigrating drawing and sculpture and engraving as inherently lesser in value than painting. Do we want to be arguing someday over the superiority of oils over acrylics, watercolors over guache or woodcut, monoprints over etchings, and so on?

After all, people don't buy art because of some word, they buy because they get something personal out of the image itself.

So, in short, I strongly disagree. If someone doesn't feel that the term "print" is not appropriate for giclee's or photo's despite the dictionary definitions, they can call their own giclee's and photo's reproductions, or any other term they please. But just leave those who do consider the word appropriate alone.

Well Prints are made by any tipe of press or printer so silkscreens are prints as well digital photography, if we try to limit the range of prints media, then we also should limit the quality of some paintings 'cause they are not in the classic techniques and so on. But we aren't here to limit others rigth so lets enjoy the new prints no mater what kind they are.

I started out doing oils, acrylic and watercolors. Now the end product of my work is done digitally even though it may start out as a photograph, painting or drawing. I find I can be more creative knowing that any mistake I make will not lead into the costly waste of materials. Most people can not tell
if my prints are original watercolors, etc or not. I challenge anybody to critisize the end product by anything other than the quality and integrity of work regardless of what the media (giclee print, oil on canvass or whatever)

OK. I agree each piece of art stands on it's own merit. However, we have to be scrupulously careful to represent it as what it is. A print is not an original and a digitally manipulated photograph is not a painting, even though it may look like one. That doesn't necessarily lessen the intrinsic value of the piece of work. However, it may affect the ciommercial value, and only the collector/buyer can determine that. We have the responsibility to make it crystal clear to the viewer and potential buyer what the work is....in the new "print" gallery and anywhere our work is shown.

I am on both sides of the fence. I can paint do phototgraphy and digital. I have found that painters seem to have an elitest attitude toward none painters. Impressionism at one time was not considered art.
Now it is old fashioned. I plan to paint again but I see anyone who picks up a brush now as old fashioned. Photography at one time was not considered art. Now it is the most important form of expression form print to film. (magazines newspapers tv etc.) For the first time in history Photo galleries in Ny are as many as traditional galleries. If you have talent it will come out no matter the media. The possibilities of technology excite me just like the possibilies of technology during the renaissance excited people back then. Back then it was the uderstanding of perspective and what can be accomplished with the brush and pigments. The possibilities of what's available now is where it's at. I am sorry to say but I feel just limiting your self to the brush you are just repeating what has already been done.

Steve,

You start off by accusing painters of being elitist, then continue with the most elitist statement I can imagine. Finally you end by stating that painters by "limiting themselves to the brush are just repeating what has already been done". What would you say taking a photograph of something nature has already created is?
There is room for all forms of media in creating art. Photography can accomplish some things, like reproducing reality much more easily than can be done with the brush. On the other hand painting can create mood and emotion in ways that can't be accomplished with photography. That's why I do both, but my greatest satisfaction comes from painting. That doesn't make either one "superior" to the other. It's a mater of individual preference. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

I am just responding to the attitudes that some artist have toward new media, attitudes that are as old as long as there have been people. I feel that I can talk about it because I have used many different media. I just laugh to my self when people criticize the next guy and I just hand it right back to them. As far as you feeling that painting can capture an emotion etc. more than a photograph: what I say to that is that you may not be able to accomplish that in a photo but other people can maybe including myself.
I have always accomplished what I have strived for not matter what media.

Well, guys lets see first who’s the painter and who’s the photographer right, there is not a default about the quality of techniques, but rather is the quality of the people, lets see how many of you painters can say that your paints are better than ANSEL ADAMS photos, or who’s photos are better than SALVADOR DALI paints. The only technique that it is better than the other one is base only on the quality of the master.

I believe whether we are painting or doing photography its about the emotion and feeling the viewer gets when they view a piece of work. When a viewer looks at a piece of art work and they instantly say WOW I like that, that is the response we all want to recieve from our art work. A great book to read is Ansel Adams An Autobiography.

Claudio I couldn't have said it better. That is the point I was trying to make

If this topic hasn't expired, I just thought I would mention that Art Calendar did a great issue on the term "print" in the traditional sense (intaglios, woodcuts, etc.), and using the word to refer to mechanical reproductions of original artwork. But rather than reitierate it all here, check out (I believe) the January 2007 issue.

If an artist made it, let's call it art. If the artist sent his painting away to some shop to clone it, then let's call it a reproduction, because by definition, that's what it is. By the way, a giclee is a clone---some artist had to create an original.

The real loser in this whole situation is the misguided art patron who thinks he bought great art, when he really just bought a copy.

Karen, well put. very succinct. I think that pretty much says it :)

As artist move along with technology, I guess we will leave some of you behind in the dust.

"If the artist sent his painting away to some shop to clone it, then let's call it a reproduction, because by definition, that's what it is."

Is that really the standard you want applied? After all, Rembrandt sent his work to shops to have engravings made, and he was not the only "old master" to do so.

All prints, whether they come out of a press or a printer are by definition reproductions, including woodcuts and engravings. In a very real sense, any time we make art that references something real, what we create is a reproduction - not the pear or apple or goddess or sunset, but a reproduction of it.

"By the way, a giclee is a clone--- "
Not really, the word clone has its origin in a very specific biological meaning. Colloquial usage only creates the appearance of trying to misguide people.

"some artist had to create an original."
So too with an engraving or woodcut or lithograph - some artist had to carve the original image in reverse into a wood or linoleum block, engrave or etch a metal plate to create the first instantiation of the image, draw on a lithograph stone the first instance of the art.

"The real loser in this whole situation is the misguided art patron who thinks he bought great art, when he really just bought a copy."

Nice dig there, but if you really want to argue that the greatness of any piece of art is contingent on whether it is unique or not, you've declared all prints, by any method, intrinsically less than great.

Again, the problem with denigrating a method like giclee's is that you open the floodgate to denigrate any other method, including engraving and etching, woodblocks and monoprints, etc. Better to judge the merits of a piece on its execution, content, confidence and relevance, than on method.

In the long run, it is probably better to expend one's efforts increasing one's mastery of one's art and techniques, than denigrating other methods and other art. After all, if your work is compelling, it won't matter in the long run how it was fashioned, but no amount of politicing to own a word will save work that is not communicative and compelling.

Hi guys,

I know I am coming into this discussion late, but I have just joined the website and would like to add my 2 cents worth to the print/reproduction/Giclee issue. I have been and "Art Festival Artist" for more than 35 years, and one thing that I have learned is that the "art world" has customers in all financial brackets. I sell originals and I sell Giclees. There is a market for both and the customer's are not ignorant about what is being sold. Yes, I am sure that, as in all industries, there are unscrupulious people who take advantage of others. But, I have met very few art patrons who do not know the difference between originals(regadless of the media) and reproductions.

There are probably more people being mislead by furniture stores that sell "assembly-line paintings" that have been turned out by the hundreds and are being sold as "unique" original paintings.

Anyway, this issue is probably far more important to us artists than it is to the patrons.

Hey! Thanks for letting me comment!

We recently joined Fine Art America and posted a discussion topic regarding how to explain the difference between a fine print and a giclée. I asked readers how they would approach the subject, and in the midst of the replies was a person who wanted to stress the importance of not dismissing digital art prints. Meanwhile, other repliers believed a "fine print" was strictly in the traditional methods. It seems the topic of fine prints has become as varied and expanded upon as it can get, and it should be noted that without using any caution, the lines between what is what become blurred.

Because we deal in exclusively hand-pulled fine prints executed in traditional methods (intaglio, blockprint, screenprint, etc.) our inventory, I believe, offers something totally separate from the digitally printed world. This, however, does not mean that we, and many who collect fine prints, do not consider digitally produced prints as art, merely that it's a completely different category. HOWEVER, digitally reproduced copies of any kind of original art -- specifically, giclées -- are not art (from my point of view). They do not carry the mark of the artist in their depth or calculation of color and line.

In the end, however, when you hang something on the walls of your home, it's about what you like, and what your pocketbook will allow.

withdrawn

is that the signed Matisse stone lithographs I own would be just as valuable if they were cut out of a magazine and framed? Ditto the Miro, Klee, Kandinskys, etc hanging in my home. You are seriously deluded if that is how you think. Every piece work of art has some intrinsic value ranging from 0 to what ever but there IS a difference between a fine print and a work that can be reproduced at will and in unlimited numbers. There are many, many people out there who have gone on cruises and paid serious sums of money for "original" art only to get home and find they have a giclee reproduction with a couple of actual brushstrokes on them and the value is practically nil. In order for something to have a real value it must have some rare quality. This is NOT to take away from the new world of digital art but it must find its way in its own category. You can dress it up however you want but it is NOT a fine print. When the great painters of old had stone lithos and etchings done of their work they were extending their own sales ability of that single painting HOWEVER Matisse (for example) pulled only 1,000 of any print, numbered them and cataloged them. I personally have the letter from Matisse to his dealer.

We have entered a new age in how (some) art is created. But it (digital) has not yet found a balance with the old (traditional) techniques. This is in no way an indictment of digital work. But just because one creates it does not mean it fits into a traditional category like fine prints.

withdrawn

Every time I get a print of one of my digital pieces done I make a change because I always find something in it that I would like to do different. Since I have converted to digital art I am selling more. There is no such thing as unlimited. Even If I wanted to create many prints I don't have the resources to do so. If you look at the stamp collecting world, there are thousands upon thousands of stamps and some of them sell more than what some art sells for. Of course the more rare ones sell for the big bucks but even these are not one of a kind. It's a balancing act between getting the image known, how it's presented, how many there are of it and who is willing to buy. The basic truth is that an artist manipulated the light that bounces off an object and is received by the brain. How the object is initially created doesn't matter as much as what happens to the light as it travels to the mind and how that mind receives it.

but... traditional print making techniques are specific. I don't mean that the new digital art is not art... it certainly is. I have a high end printer and if I "create" a work of digital (I have) I can push PRINT and 1,2,3,4 (you get the idea) and it will spit them out. Intaglio, woodcuts, stone lithos require a very specific press, paper, and can only be pulled one at a time. I have never seen a fine art print (Matisse, Klee, etc) that was over 1,000 prints. You can't call an oil an acrylic or a watercolor. You can't call a picture cut from Time magazine a fine print. These things are specific terms. ALL have their place. Yes, some of the great masters had their paintings reproduced as ecthings, lithos but you never see any of these "prints" by the average painter of the day. This means that a Rembrandt (for example) etching (even a restrike) will fetch in the neighborhood of $15,000. Now really, Larry the Sunday painter who lived down the road from Rembrandt did not put his work on the market in the same way. Today we can ALL do this at little cost to the artist. This is for the most part a good thing. It makes our work accessible to the greater public. But in fact is must be at a reduced rate to the original. This is why my collectors are looking for limited editions.

It is very clear that we have entered into a new age of art. The ability to faithfully reproduce a painting (for example) once only resided in museum quality prints. Today anyone with a good digital and some decent lighting can (often) get a darn good reproduction. Of course the rise of digital artwork really stands a lot of things on their head. But that doesn't mean we can merely abandon the traditional definitions of print making.

Firstly, sorry if I repeat any points, this is a long discussion and I may have lost track! Also, sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick but this is how I see it...


'As artist move along with technology, I guess we will leave some of you behind in the dust.'

Photography is hardly a newer technology is it? As for digital painting, yeah, much more 'recent', I'll give you that, but how could you stand by this view? A virtuoso oil painting could rip apart an inferior digital painting. I have seen some phenominal digital paintings, but, like every other media, there's a lot of dross out there too. (e.g. Those people you find that create images that might as well be photos. Why not just take the photo and leave it at that?) You cannot claim to be better based simply on the medium you choose. You need to display some skill!

Why the superiority complex?

Shock value. I’ve come across some painters who are snobs about their craft. Being a painter my self, I'm just putting them in their place. I had this discussion last night about my work at a reception for the artist for a new magazine issue. Just to put things into perspective one of my pieces took me two years to release before I was happy with it. It's the perception of some that you just point and click or press a button on the computer and you have an instant mage. By the way in one of my exhibits people could not tell if one of my pieces was painted or a print.

is not about the quality or even the superiority of one medium over another. I do not believe in that. But I do believe in semantics and semantics dictate that a digital print... even if it took 10 years to create is NOT the same thing as an etching, etc. If I ordered a print that I expected to be in the traditional mode and discovered otherwise I would feel cheated. There should be, needs to be a category for digital work (and there is) Digital does not belong in the category of printmaking.

Oh, and as to you last point... I have (in my office) 5 watercolors. Two are my originals and 3 are scanned (digital) and printed on canvas. You can not tell which is which. That does NOT make the printed works original watercolors now does it?

I want to be understood.. I have NOTHING against digital work. I have done them and I choose to use a variety of media in my own work. I do not market my acrylic paintings as oils. Why this need to force new work into a traditional category?

It's funny how something that was done in the past to create inexpensive reproductions is now an art form.

I think that statement seriously misrepresents the entire printmaking art form. Do you really believe that Rembrandt spent all that time doing etchings merely as a quick knock off of his other work? Have you had any art history? I never denigrated digital art. I'm sure somewhere I can now get a degree in digital artwork. I would hate to think I'll have to go back to my alma mater and get my money back for that minor I got in printmaking.

Printmaking is a specific art form. Why is that so difficult to acknowledge? Generations of artists and collectors have done so, are you assigning yourself to be the arbiter of what is and what is not art?

It's the golden rule. Those who have it rule. Whoever has the money is who usually determine what is art.

That is true as far as it goes but we can look back on a history (of art) and revise those determinations. You still are avoiding the central point. printmaking is a specific art form. If you wanted to buy a car (for example) and you were set on a Chevy and saw an add that fit the bill but when you showed up to see the car it was Ford you might think that categories had some relevance. It may be a tortured metaphor but I'm sure you get the point. A thing needs to called what is is not what we may want it to be. There are many stones out there that are beautiful man made and otherwise. Try selling a zircon to a diamond dealer and tell him it's all the same.

I don't think I ever said it wasn't an art. I don't remember all that I said. This discussion goes back to last year sometime. I get turned off when some people put other people’s efforts down. I become the same AH that I see them as being to give them a taste of their own pompousness. I could go back and read wverything. i just don't ahve the time right now.

I don't think I ever said it wasn't an art. I don't remember all that I said. This discussion goes back to last year sometime. I get turned off when some people put other people’s efforts down. I become the same AH that I see them as being to give them a taste of their own pompousness. I could go back and read wverything. i just don't ahve the time right now.

on his side. Digital art is just that ... produced digitaly, as opposed to another way. I happen to be a boy of the brush and know that what I do is specific to me, my sensibilities, the pressures I apply to the bristles, the way I load it, my insight or lack thereof, etc.
Back in the early 19 hundreds a few cats wanted to make art more available to the working man (thinking it would improve their lot and therefore society as a whole) so they brought the wood cut back and made down and dirty pieces that cost so little hand to mouth people could have original art in their homes ... and thus expressionism was born, quite likely the most important innovation since the Renaisance in the visual arts.
Impressive collection of one of the most creative periods in the arts since Hellenistic era of Grecian art (4th & 3rd century b.c.)Kevin.

All of my works are created digitally. A high-end printing process puts the creation on paper or canvas...depending on what I want, and how much I am willing to pay. All of my works are printed by a professional printing house. My home printer is used for letter writing...not art. I do not have the space for a $25,000 printer in my studio. I do not want to fuss with one, if I did have the space. As far as hitting, 4-5-6 etc on the prints wanted, not a chance. My prints are very carefully controlled for numbers, sizes, and types of materials used for printing.

I am very, very certain the old masters had these same issues. Each print they ordered cost them money to have run off...regardless of the method used. Printers do not work for free, 500 years ago or now.

I am very, very certain of this too: had cameras, printers and computers been available to the old masters, they would have used them!

They were the inovators of their time. I'm sure you are right.

Anne your are preaching to the choir. This is NOT about whether your kind of art is better than mine. It is SIMPLY about semantics. Your digital work not matter how good (and it is) is NOT nor EVER WILL BE an etching, an oil painting, an acrylic, a watercolor, it is a digital work of art. ALL i"m saying is that an ETCHING is an etching, a woodcut a woodcut and they are (among other processes) called printmaking. Look... why do you call your work digital? I know... someone named it and that's what you call it. Well... an etching is called an etching, a woodcut... you get the picture.

I AM IN NO WAY ARGUING ABOUT WHAT MEDIUM IS BETTER. GET IT? I am only saying that an etching is A medium.

When one is forced to choose a category from a limited list, one selects the item most closely describing what they do. Not a single time have I ever called my digital works print making. But, when they are printed, they become a print, just like a photo negative when it becomes a positive is a print, or an x-ray film when it is actually printed as a positive image. A document is printed when it comes off a press or Xerox machine or digital laser printer. A newspaper is in print and the last printing of a book with the last print of film all borrow this word.

My sister Mary did block prints: Very artistic but the truth is, she could churn out hundreds of them if that suited her. Everything has its limits. Even beautiful art prints...after there are ten thousand of the same print in circulation it is not really very rare anymore. It may be famous but it is not rare. This same discussion has been held in various forms since FAA came into being with no resolution in sight.

Brian produces fine art prints--for anyone who wants to buy them and for any artist or gallery who signs up for POD. With this potential, any artist could be become something of a celebrity if their work develops a following.

We all defend our own pieces of turf because it feels like an attack on our entire sensibility as an artist and dare let me say, as a human, when someone comes along and sneers at what we do.

And, finally, I have an entire gallery of works that I created that are not digital. They are oils and acrylics and drawings. I do not have the equipment to photograph them as uploads to FAA and I do not wish to pay to have it done, either. So, I paint with my computer. That uploads in nothing flat because it is 0s and 1s talking to 0s and 1s. No muss, no fuss, no feathers. Go have a beer.