Donna, It's not the mechanism of the reproduction that people find offensive, it's the attempt to make Giclees greater than what they are by using descriptive language once reserved for limited edition original prints (etching, engraving, mezotint, woodblock, serigraph, lithography, etc.).
In all the instances above, the original work of the artist is in creating the plate/stone/screen/block, hence there is no original of the viewed piece of art once the edition has been pulled and the plates defaced. The edition size is determined by the number of images that can be pulled before the plate begins to show wear, not the number the publisher thinks is the perfect combination between price and quantity.
Furthermore the inks and the inking/printing process are done by hand assuring a slight variance within the edition (the Europeans being less concerned about the consistency than we Americans).
With giclee as well as offset lithography, their is an original piece of work in another medium. The image is digitally or photo-mechanically copied and printed on paper/canvas. There can be no direct comparison between a piece printed on paper with an ink-jet and the original oil on canvas other than the recognizable image. There are no brush strokes, no dimension.
There should be a solid line drawn between reproductions and original prints. To not council your client as to the difference is to mislead them into associating the two technologies as being equal.
I think that any form of reproduction is a blessing to the ability to provide folks with the images they desire. Let's just be sure they know what they are buying.
Historically the Giclee had a rocky start, and there is still a good deal of caution in regard to their permanence and their acceptance as a legitimate art medium (as evidenced by some of the comments on this thread). The technology has never quite caught up to the marketing. Those of us that had bad experiences with the initial offerings are rightfully cautious about the claims of current publishings. The difficulty some folk have in stretching the works on canvas points to this need for caution.
Historically, as well, is the attempt by some of those interested in selling art to use tactics that attempt to add legitimacy to newer forms of art by associating them with established mediums. I have been to a number of auctions where the pitch for a piece of art was so shrouded in jargon and obfuscation that anyone other than a well versed art student could be easily duped into believing something was what it was not.
Having become somewhat jaded over the years as to my artistic bent I am not easy to embrace new technologies, and can more easily understand those that would be dubbed "art snob" for their insistence that original work is the only kind to have. Artists, publishers and the "secondary" market of limited edition reproduction (including Giclee) have managed to do much for the support of this opinion within the art world. It would seem, at times, that they are their own worst enemy.
I agree that something is "worth" what someone is willing to spend for it, but if they don't know exactly what they are getting there is some question as to the legitimacy of that worth.
I'm coming around to agreement about giclees myself. In fact, several years ago, the canvas could be a combo of natural and synthetic threads causing rippling as each reacted differently to temp and moisture. How many times do you restretch for a customer??
