Affordable Giclee' Printmaking

Fredrick Lane

Grumbler
Joined
Sep 18, 2004
Posts
31
Loc
Rural Triad, North Carolina
I offer affordable (truly) giclee' printmaking thru my frameshop. I personally do all the work. I am an Adobe Certified Master in Photoshop. Prints are made on the Epson 7600, so we can go up to 24 inch wide stock. The inital capture is direct digital, no transparency required. Several paper stocks available as well as canvas.

Email: FLDC@surry.net

Will glady quote your job.

References from some top artists in my area available upon request.
 
Originally posted by Fredrick Lane:
I offer affordable (truly) giclee' printmaking thru my frameshop. I personally do all the work. I am an Adobe Certified Master in Photoshop. Prints are made on the Epson 7600...
Not trying to cause a fuss here, and I mention this aside from the underlying wonderfully brilliant technology, and beautiful reproduction quality of ink jet printing, but nevertheless:

I cannot understand why those involved in this area insist on using the term "printmaking" in reference to ink jet photocopying.
icon45.gif
Actually, I do understand, I simply disagree with misleading terminology. :mad:

Similar to standards in archival framing, framers and commercial print shops should look to standardize terminology when it comes to "pictures" (all forms of original artwork as well as the myriad forms of reproductions), both for themselves and their customers.

Whew! I had my say; I'll try my hardest to shut up now.
shutup.gif
;)

p.s. Best of luck in your business, Fred!
 
Maybe because it isn't photocopying.

Based upon what I perceive to be your definition of photocopying, then even offset prints are just photocopies of the original as the original was photographed to get the info to create the offset on a press. Should photographs then also be called photocopies and not prints?
I consider photocopies to be copies from a Kinkos or some such place or the copy machine in an office. These machines are not even in the same realm of the high end printers out there such as the large format Epsons and the (formerly named) Iris and such. They are two separate animals completely.

What type of prints do you make? This might help me to understand where you are coming from in your posting.

What Fred (and I) do actually is printmaking according to the industry that we make up so our terminology is the standard for our industry as well as the general public who buy them.
Whether it comes from a carved block of linoleum and inked up and pressed onto paper or it is scanned into a computer and created on a large format printer, they are both prints thus making us all printmakers.

thumbsup.gif
thumbsup.gif
 
Oh, by the way, Fred... keep pumping out those photocopies!!
shutup.gif
shutup.gif


I have an Epson 9600 photocopier/printer. Really nice machines, aren't they!!
thumbsup.gif
thumbsup.gif
 
in my building i have a printer who does alot of off set printing, mostly catalogs, business cards and stickers.

We are both looking at buying a large format digital printer, and looked at the canon but when you put the print in a light box, you see thru it, we also looked at the Roland and it printed really nice and smooth, but the salesperson didn't calabrated it right, so the color was wrong

We also went to the Wizard man in Sydney and he showed us the Epson, (forgot the size) and it looked great, I know I'm rambling, so my question is... is the Epson 9600 or 7600 good for commerical printing to use for banners and also hang in light boxes.

We also want to get into giclee' as they are becoming very popular here in OZ

thanks
Marion
 
Originally posted by framah:
Maybe because it isn't photocopying.

Based upon what I perceive to be your definition of photocopying, then even offset prints are just photocopies of the original as the original was photographed to get the info to create the offset on a press. Should photographs then also be called photocopies and not prints?
I consider photocopies to be copies from a Kinkos or some such place or the copy machine in an office. These machines are not even in the same realm of the high end printers out there such as the large format Epsons and the (formerly named) Iris and such. They are two separate animals completely.

What type of prints do you make? This might help me to understand where you are coming from in your posting.

What Fred (and I) do actually is printmaking according to the industry that we make up so our terminology is the standard for our industry as well as the general public who buy them.
Well, I wasn't going to bother as there have been so many articles printed about this exact subject in reputable publications but, here goes. My apologies, in advance, for what is sure to be a lengthy posting.

There are a number of sources for this information; this particular excerpt is from "PRINTS: Guidelines & Definitions", published by PADAC (Professional Art Dealers Association of Canada).

" AN ORIGINAL PRINT is an image that has been conceived by the artist as a print and executed solely as a print … Each print in the edition is an original, printed from a (single or series of) plate, stone, screen, block or other matrix created for that purpose. There is no one one orginal print from which copies are made. Each print is inked and pulled individually; it is a multe original medium …

A REPRODUCTION has no relationship whatsoever to an original print. Is a a photo-(or scanned) mechanical copy of a work of art conceived by the artist in another medium (painting etc.). Numbering and signing a reproduction does not change its essence; it is still a reproduction, not an original print. …
Fuzzy or vague terminology such as “litho print”, “fine art print”, etc. must be eliminated, since these terms are misleading and cause great confusion in the print market. A reproduction must be labelled as a reproduction… "

The term "printmaking" has traditionally been reserved for traditional printmaking techniques as partially described above. And you are right - if we degrade the term to its lowest common denomenator, than anyone who prints anything from his home printer or photocopier is a printer in that he/she has made a "print".

To answer your question: Although the quality of the image created by an offset press may be superior to that of a laser photocopier, and the quality of the ink jet (oops, "giclee) printer may be superior to that of the offset press, but the resultant copies are all "photocopies" (i.e. photographed/scanned copies of an original).

I won't comment much on photography. This is not at issue here. Although boundaries can be blurred, the world of photography has not (as far as I know), generally tried to graft itself onto the world of printmaking. I'll let the photographers speak for themselves but, I suspect they would say that photography stands on its own as an entirely distinct entity.

p.s. If you've read all the way down to this point - wow - congratulations!
 
printmaker,
i feel you, i am a photographer...i print my own work even color. now they say a computer print is a photograph...come on, get real. it is the quick way to do a product i find to be inferior(that is me I can tell the difference and see a better product). i guess the difference between a photographer and an artist in this sense, would be one pushes the buttons and the other uses their hand and vision to create a finished product.
i think print making is an amazing art that will be around forever. photography, who knows? all i know is why these button pushers keep pushing on, it pushes the price of my prints up.

this is not the pc version...and i dont care. this is how i feel.

d
 
Printmaker, As a child my mother and I carved lino and woodblock. And we printed our own stuff on a Kelsey, and then a Chandler & Price. Later we both worked part time for a "printer" with a Heidleburg and then a huge 4 color offset.
Meanwhile there was a lady who was doing stone lithos in town....... At the High School we were pulling Silk Screens.....

And down the road and 15 years later, "artists" like Bev Doolittle were signing paper off a highspeed offset and calling them "lithos". Peter Max and Ivan Earl have a "Print maker" pulling silkscreens and they sign them and call them "Serigraphs". And I won't even get started about Kincade . . . .

Now adays, I take a digital picture, mess about with it in Photoshop, "print" it out as large as I can on watercolor paper, erase, color, and physically mess with it, scan it back into the computer, mess around in photoshop some more, and maybe repeat the process or not then "Print" on water color paper in a small very tight format.

So my question is, and this is an honest question, I've been calling it a "mixed media print", so what is it if not that? I only have a HP 990ce, do I need to buy a 7600+ to be respected as an artist? Where do we draw the line now adays?

baer
 
Originally posted by Baer Charlton:
Printmaker...
Now adays, I take a digital picture, mess about with it in Photoshop, "print" it out as large as I can on watercolor paper, erase, color, and physically mess with it, scan it back into the computer, mess around in photoshop some more, and maybe repeat the process or not then "Print" on water color paper in a small very tight format.

So my question is, and this is an honest question, I've been calling it a "mixed media print", so what is it if not that? I only have a HP 990ce, do I need to buy a 7600+ to be respected as an artist? Where do we draw the line now adays?

baer
Here we go again…

You make some valid and interesting points, Baer. We are getting (perhaps more than) a bit off topic but, as you asked, here's my 2 cents worth.

The term "giclee" was undoubtedly fabricated to bring a "legitimacy" and elevate the market profile of printing via ink jet - after all, one would not pay large amounts of money for a lowly ink jet print (no matter how good the quality), but a "giclee" ... ooh, ahh, now that's a different story! ;) I could stand to be corrected but, the real value of the giclee for publishers and artists is the ability to produce as large (or small) an "edition" as required, with minimal cash outlay, and without requiring the printing of the entire edition as would be practical when printing via offset. But, I digress...

As you've eluded to, Baer, fraud and questionable marketing practices in the "print" market have been documented ad nauseum; the most common of these is the purposeful blurring of terminology to garner a larger profit share, as well as the blatant misrepresentation of the actual nature of “prints” in question.

So, “where do we draw the line nowadays”? If you're a publisher, sitting on a mountain of paper, you’re in luck. There are few, if any, laws limiting your “line”. (I recall a "reputable" publisher who, when faced with the rapid selling out of an edition of offset "prints", proceeded to sell "artists proofs", the numbers of which were far greater than the original "edition" ; this was quite "legal"
icon45.gif
).

It seems that the bottom line is, most often, based solely on "bottom line". We each select our “lines” based on the marketplace, our experience and, (perhaps) most importantly, our ethics (or lack thereof).

I.M.H.O., the lowliest potato print is still “an original print”; it is an original piece of artwork. The finest “giclee”, the colours of which have been tweaked on the finest computer using the finest software, printed on the finest canvas in the tiniest of edition sizes, is still merely a reproduction - a form of "photocopy"...

This has nothing to do with the quality or marketability of the image(s) in question. It has to do with the essence of the “prints” in question…

Following this philosophy (of which, for most, would be counter-productive $$$!), the lowliest ink jet printer produces the same product as the most sophisticated iris (or other) printer; the essence of each is the same – only the quality might differ...

Regardless of the cost or quality of your printer, legally, you can call your "prints", pretty much, anything you want. If you're (in the apparent minority, and are) concerned with ethics and morality, I would urge you to choose your words and terms carefully. At the proverbial end of the day, it is important to look with pride at the person in your mirror.

Best of luck to you, Baer!
 
If I understand this, (I am known to be a troublemaker
and I am trying to be funny here, yet the question arises in my head) then a newspaper would be a print? Maybe?

This is a great discussion, and I am glad that my only interest in it is to have the opportunity to frame some of the most beautiful objects on earth, the work of a printmaker.
thumbsup.gif
 
Originally posted by ERIC:
... a newspaper would be a print? Maybe?
Absolutely yes... It's sort of like my neighbour:

He went to Walmart, bought a photo frame and stuck a photo in it; he now considers himself to be a picture framer. This means, if can sell his "handiwork", he'd be a "professional picture framer". :D
 
well jo blow buys $300 digital camera and makes a few prints at home on his dell computer and printer, now he is a photographer...he knows nothing about it and could not answer a question about film or light, but he is a photographer because there is an image? no of coure not, too many folks put labels on what they do to feel included. I am a ______ (vegitarian, but i eat fish, a plumber, because i flush the toilet, i am a framer, because i got a metal frame at michaels and shoved my work in it, i am an artist, because i spilled paint on this canvas that was on the floor 20 years ago when i took a painting class....etc). Stop it! Be honest, get these seriagraphs, embellished giclee, iris, ultrachrome, lambda, offset lithos, and all the other names pusher to be real. "This was printed by a computer." Yes the value will probably go down as printmaker mentioned, it is a marketing gimick. That is it a computer print, nothing more.
d
 
Actually, I am also a photographer... one who has spent countless hours in the darkroom and now my darkroom is the computer and printer on my desk at work. There is no difference. A photograph is a photograph no matter how it was produced. If I let the sun expose a negative onto sensitized paper or I let the computer direct the printer to make the image, it is still my image that I created in my camera and whatever dancing I used to do in the darkroom, I can still do in my computer. It's all the same. It is not a photocopy of an original, it is my print from my camera. Thus the semantic dilemma. Of course, the question to you guys is...do you even call images recorded with a digital camera a photograph as it isn't on film??

Printmaker, you make quite a few good points and I'm glad you are posting them here for us to discuss.

Gotta go. My printer is finished making me another $300 of profit.
thumbsup.gif
thumbsup.gif
 
We do pee on this inkjet (or if we are snooty giclee) technology from time to time. Okay, I have a real photo lab as part of my frame shop. We do production prints and enlargements using RC paper, chemicals, and noritsu minilabs. I also do the old hand processing of black & white on fiber-based papers. We do Ilfochromes. We scan and make dye sub prints, we use dye sub inks to print on ceramic tiles and mugs. I have a large format HP printer and an epson 7600. I've got a silkscreen press. We have this gear so our customers have options for producing their images. The images may be captured digitally or on film, or created with a brush. Doesn't make a difference to me. Whatever the customer's preference is, I'll try to deliver. We'll put it on canvas, watercolor paper or whatever. I've coated crab shells with emulsion and printed on them cause that was what the customer wanted. The product is a visual thing. I want to make it and then sell the customer a frame. Giving the customers what they want is what retail businesses do.

Let the customer decide if it is a photograph or art, inkjet or giclee print.

Now, I've got this thing about people who call themselves artists before they have ever sold a piece of art. Maybe they have gone to art school and paid for their certification. I say if they are working with a paint and brush, or a computer, they are just a painter until someone else thinks they have created art.
 
Ok...my "hot button issue" I'll just give you the short version...


Originally posted by framah:
Gotta go. My printer is finished making me another $300 of profit.
thumbsup.gif
thumbsup.gif
And therein lies the dilemma. When the memory of the creative process is externalized from the human mind it no longer is a creative process. When you press the "print" button for the final time, you have stopped creating.

I fall hard on the side of Printmaker (and printmakers) by calling anything that relies on mechanical or electronic memory to be categorized as a reproduction or copy.

Even the finest and most careful printmaker or photographer cannot guarantee that each pull of the plate or dodge and burn of the light will result in an image indistinguishable from the rest of the edition. Each one is unique, though they are thrown in to editions and assumed to be equal. The very reason for limiting editions is to assure the consistency of quality, not to create a false supply from which to market.

The computerized process has made the whole idea of self publishing possible and when first introduced it was a tumultuous beginning. The marketing was well in advance of the technology, and I think there is still a lag in that respect to this day. The photo industry was the first to fall in step because the possibilities of image management through photoshop etc made the alchemy of the darkroom anachronistic.

I do not want to degrade the process, but I also want to make **** sure that the line between making a print and reproducing an image is a very clear one. You can make a print in a darkroom, or on an intaglio press (lithopress, etc.). If the final image comes through the computer, regardless of the number of hands-on steps in between, it is a reproduction (just like the infinite number of other exact copies you can then make). This is not an issue of right or wrong. It is an issue of full disclosure to the end user of the true nature of the item they are considering buying.

I am not alone in this thought. The two gallery directors that I work with in Jacksonville will not show ink jet reproduction of any form of art. They consider them to be no better, or worse than any other reproduced images.

My employee is having a one person show at Jacksonville Museum of Modern Art (JMOMA) of his photography. The gallery director was very specific that his work be shot on film and processed using classical photographic technology and printed on fiber based papers.

So Fred, yes, good luck with your enterprise. I hope you fair well. But don't fool yourself or the buying public in to thinking what they are buying is anything more than what it is. The publishing industry had the good graces to call their product "Limited Edition Reproductions" and from where I sit there is precious little difference between a 4-color offset press and an Epson printer. Ink jets should be accepted for what they are, and not to be confused with established art forms thereby gaining favor through false association.

Will I sell Giclees?..in a heart beat. Can I justify the price?...I don't have to, as long as I'm honest about what I'm selling. Will I call them prints?...No, they are LER's just like the offsets that preceeded them.

Oh, just so you don't think I'm talking outta my hat...I've put in my time in both the print shop and the darkroom.
 
Originally posted by katman:

Let the customer decide if it is a photograph or art, inkjet or giclee print.
Aha, Katman!

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make...

It should NOT be up to the customer to "decide". We, in the industry(ies) should be setting standards and guidelines regarding designation of that which is printed.
shrug.gif
This should, certainly, be done PROIR to customer involvment...

This is not to value or devalue certain forms of "pictures", but for the purposes of honesty, clarity and to provide our customers with a feeling that the world of art (and, by association, framing) does, indeed, have appropriate structure and guidelines.
thumbsup.gif


Unfortunately, due to years of ignorance and the deceptive acts of (what I can only hope are the) minority of dealers, galleries/frame shops have all too often been looked upon with dubious eyes by clientelle, and potential clientelle.
help.gif
A myriad of articles, over the years, aimed at the general public bear witness to this
kaffeetrinker_2.gif
...

For many of us, a truly educated consumer is our best customer
thumbsup.gif
...

On the other hand, the same person who has either been scr-wed by a gallery/frame shop in the purchase of a "print", may never trust another professional picture framer
cry.gif
...

Hmmm ... perhaps this is frome whence the infamous M gets much of its clientelle :confused: !?!
 
Wally has again hit the mark. Full disclosure.

Those of us making inkjet prints or any other reproductions should provide our clients with the best information available about the materials used, technology, longevity, etc. Price is a different issue. It is whatever an informed buyer is willing to pay.

And, yes Printmaker, there should be some standards, or standard definitions, so the consumer can make an informed decision. I guess that's why I start spitting ink every time I hear someone offering to do "giclee" prints. They are inkjet prints. They were inkjet prints when the cutting edge printer was an Iris. Still are today.
 
As someone who frames and sells every possible type of printed material, I am both loving this information and worried about my part in helping/hurting the matter in how I speak to my clients.

Is the term 'graphic' useful as a general description of anything that falls outside of the definition of a print?

If not, in your opinion what terms can be used?
 
Kleenex or tissue?? Copy or Xerox?? Reproduction or print?? Alot of products have been interchanged over time. This seems to be what is happening here as well.

I agree that one should call the product what it really is... an original or a reproduction, and I do thoroughly discuss the process I use as well as its longevity compared to other forms of reproduction. What is happening is that even the general public is calling almost anything a print. It really is no big deal as it only a word and as long as we both ( the customer and I) know what we are talking about then it doesn't matter. One of my artists will call me and say, Can you make me 4 more prints?? I know what he wants, he knows what he wants and he gets his copies, reproductions,or prints and is happy. The bottom line is we both know what we are talking about.
So, as much as it seems I might be busting on you printmaker, I agree with your premise of an informed buying public.
 
I get in my truck and take my camera with me, loaded with slide film.

As I drive through the countryside I pull over and take pictures. On automatic setting. I like to find interesting compositions in the rural area I live. Old barns, neat signs, cluttered porches, etc. I'm not a photographer, just takin' pictures.

A lab develops the slides, i scan the ones I like into my computer through Photoshop, and then proceed to spend one to two days changing elements of that image. After multiple proofs and tweaks, I'm finished. Then I print it on fine art watercolor paper on an Epson 2200.

I call them prints, and sell them, framed and unframed. To those in the business these are inkjet prints to some, giclees to others. I think giclee is pretentious. Besides, why use a word you most certainly will have to explain whenever you use it.

But invariably when folks see my work and like it they say they love my photographs. I say they are not photographs, but before I go much further their eyes glaze over.

They like the picture. They don't give a rip what I call it. I was the only one on the planet who saw that image that way that day and shot it. I have interpreted it and printed out the results.
Not on my computer....on my printer. That's why I call them prints.

They are not originals because I print more than one, they are not limited editions because I don't number them. I do call them open editions, because they are images I print out to replenish my stock.

Many, many folks know art as either an original or a print. I don't think this will change, so to be sure I don't misrepresent what I do, I call them prints. Printed on my printer.
 
got to respect jack on his post. he is saying i do ...tells his customer it is a print (no fancy deceptive name, just a print from a computer). he is doing something and informs the buyer of what it is.

a hand print is different than a computer print. the best hand printed image will differ in some way from print to print. this is a person using their body, mind, soul, and all the variables. computer is a "false perfection." do you think evey print that ansel adams (the ones he printed himself-someone else printing them is another bad topic) printed were exactly the same? of course not, there is a beauty in that. so many things go into one piece of paper, that you loose in a computer. a computer makes it all the same, no creativity from print to print. just say print 50 and be done with it. there are folks that are wonderful hand printers that i am friens with, then they go digital. i ask why and they say simply, convenience. that is what this all is,make it simply and easy.

can not respect that.

adding fuel to the fire
d
 
Jack is part way there what I do. I add handwork and futz around a bunch more then print it.

Unlike some, I don't sell that art. It's one of the "fun" things that I do. My art is more in wood things, (currently). So I guess I'll just call them Kobattijso. Because if I call them "prints" I get in trouble from the "Art" world. If I call them photos, I get in trouble with the photography world.... so will I be safe if I just go with Kind of Bitchin Artwork That The Ink Jet Spit Out?

But on a more serious note: to those with Giclee printing expertise; many people have told me that they can't stretch a giclee printed on canvass over stretcher bars..... I've stretched a lot of what I thought were print transfers, and several Ink Jet Photo Prints on canvass, but have never had a customer bring me something and tell me that it is a "giclee on canvas".
Do they stretch different? The ink-jet photos didn't....

baer
 
Hey Baer

I need to know that same question as I'm learning how to stretch canvas, and I've got making the stretcher bar down pat, and I am getting giclee's printed up as we speak and then have to stretch them, and here I thought they were the same as normal painted canvas.. Now I'm really scared!!!

I hope someone answers that question, Do they stretch different???
shrug.gif
 
dns, don't come down so hard on the computer/printer as tools for making prints. Yes, a capable person working with film, chemicals, different types of paper and emulsions can produce exceptional prints. But the same can be said of someone who really knows how to exploit the capabilities of their computer, printer, inks and the specialty papers and cloth now avaialble.
 
dns said "a computer makes it all the same, no creativity from print to print."

I invest my creativity in 50 completely separate and different images, rather than 50 incrementally varying versions of the same image.

Both constitute creativity...and art.
 
This discussion is interesting and has occurred before on the Grumble with variations. With very few exceptions, all printing whether by "pressing", or in modern usage of the word including other methods, is intended to produce reproductions of original "art". It is arrogant to say that modern methods that can produce more consistent reproductions are less valid in producing "art". Value is something that the consumer is most entitled to judge. That judgment will most probably include beauty, rarity and quality of materials. Modern usage of the word print includes most reproductions that are currently sold in frame shops and galleries, whatever method was used for production. The only "ethical" restriction on the use of noun print that I will accept in my shop is the use of the proper descriptive adjective for the method of "printing".

My two cents. BTW the most stunning prints on display in my shop today Giclees and Hand colored engravings - Opposite ends of printing technology.

Pat :D
 
Originally posted by Pat Murphey:
... all printing whether by "pressing", or in modern usage of the word including other methods, is intended to produce reproductions of original "art"...
Sorry, Pat. Please don't take the following as an attack; it is not!

I really was intending to say my peace and leave it at that but, otherwise well intentioned statements like the above lead me, once again, into the fray
icon45.gif
...

The following is from a purely fine art perspective and, once again, not being an expert on photography, I shall refrain from commenting on this area:

If there is an original (a drawing, painting, etc.) from which copies are made, the resultant "prints", regardless of having been printed by machine OR BY HAND (!!!), are reproductions. They are copies of an existing original piece of art. Changing the colours, size, etc. does not change their essence; nor does signing and limiting of edition sizes, or printing on fancy substrates. These "prints" are copies - reproductions. This is "PRINTING".

An original print is AN ORIGINAL PIECE OF ART existing in a multiple format. It has been printed from a single or series of plates, blocks, stones, screens or other matrix format, created for the express and sole purpose to bring the final image into existance. There is no one original from which copies have been made. The resultant image exists only as an (original) print. This is "PRINTMAKING".
faintthud.gif
 
What about computer generated images. The "Original" is only in the computer. Would an inkjet of these images be an "Original Print"?

And thus is an inkjet of a manipulated digital photo an "Original Print" it does not exist in any other form so what difference does the output equipment matter
 
Printmaker,

Your ellipsis left out "With very few exceptions". I do recognize and accept your use of the adjective "original", the most notable and relatively rare usage in today's art parlance. And, I would suggest that many "original" prints are based on a piece of art that is subsequently used to create the plates, screens, etc. In fact in the early days of "engravings" the artist and the engraver were usually different people.

I do not wish to denigrate your pride in "PRINTMAKING". I am only defending the modern usage of the word print and the quality art produced with modern methods.

Pat :D
 
When trying to describe multiple copies of an image we should first define if it is a product to sell, or art of value.

I like to say “print” when I am talking about art that an artist has, had a hand in creating and producing.

Photography, and computer-generated art are respectively, “photo images”, and “computer images”, both being unique original images.

Computer generated multiple images of a work of art (made for sale) are products and are called “images” or “copies”.

I use the term reproduction to describe a product that is photo mechanically reproduced. If it is signed it is a “signed reproduction”. It is still not art.

Some artists, gallery owners, framers, and convience store owners mislead the public; by using terms that define a product as art, or signing and numbering a product to infer that it has value as art.

[ 09-30-2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Mitch ]
 
Originally posted by Pat Murphey:
Printmaker,

Your ellipsis left out "With very few exceptions". I do recognize and accept your use of the adjective "original", the most notable and relatively rare usage in today's art parlance...

I do not wish to denigrate your pride in "PRINTMAKING". I am only defending the modern usage of the word print and the quality art produced with modern methods.

Pat :D
Thank you for your kind posting, Pat. I was trying to keep my own posting(s) as simple and short :rolleyes: as possible, which is why the pre-amble mentioned that it was not an "attack". Again, thank you for your understanding.

Flipping through popular trade magazines (the names of which will not be mentioned here ;) ), we can see (far too) many examples of items referred to as "original prints" which, in fact, have been reproduced via various printing/printmaking methods (and are, therefore, "reproductions").

A while ago, I reframed a print (an original print :D ) for a customer. On the back of the frame was a sticker from the well respected (fine art) gallery from which the piece was purchased. It proudly stated that "this original piece of artwork has been museum framed to the highest standards"...

After removing the kraft paper backing, I proceeded to remove the corrugated cardboard backing. To make a long story short, this, along with the masking tape by which the print was mounted, had severely damaged the artwork. At our suggestion, the customer took the artwork to a professional to be restored before we reframed it.

I think we can all agree that this piece was certainly not "museum framed to the highest standards".

When all is said and done, without across the board industry standards and guidelines, terming a reproduction as an original print (for example), is just as "legitimate" as that gallery referring to their shoddy framing job as having been "museum framed to the highest standards".

Regarding Dave's excellent question of computer generated images, as an obsolete traditional printmaker, I'll leave that to question to others (not that I don't have an opinion here
thumbsup.gif
).

I'll leave this thread now to die in peace and apologize, once again, to anyone who may have been upset.

Thanks all. Happy printing! :cool:
 
Back
Top