Archival and LE Giclees

[Petengeth]

I have just read the other thread, it only took me 2 days on and off, and I'm exhausted.

The main thing that struck me is this whole Giclee thing being marketing in the first place not Fine Art.

Prints were originally limited as the method of printing caused gradual deterioration of the output so they were limited by their very nature. Plates would wear and the detail on the plates would fade, silk screens wear and are fragile etc.

Collectors or afficionados wanted a print from early on in the process for this reason, it wasn't so much the edition size as the quality of the earlier prints. Print 1 is better than print 80 and a collector wants print 1.

The artist generally printed up to a point where they judged the work was at it's best and then stopped. I have seen editions of 12 for etchings. They were then numbered in the correct order and the total number also shown.

Giclee printing is mass publication and bears no comparison with what I have just described, that isn't a criticism just a fact. The whole numbering of them is unjustified and pure marketing hype in my view.

Books were referred to as a comparison. The only valuable books are those that are rare for usually accidental reasons, for example an unknown or little appreciated writer in their day producing a small number of books many of which may have been later lost or destroyed. That author then becomes world famous and the books are re-printed in their millions, the first edition may have only 2 known copies left. The manuscript is the original. Rare equals value.

An etching is an original it is not a reproduction of a painting and even if the plate is not destroyed it will not work as well when worn. The prints will be of inferior quality.

A giclee is a reproduction not an original work of art. Reproductions are decoration not Fine Art and designed to have a limited shelf life usually one generation, the person that bought it and liked it. They don't have any inherent value so don't expect it to be an investment.

I don't think archival anything is relevant although no one wants their picture to disappear after a year so I would expect a reasonable quality of ink and paper. I would expect my Giclee to look reasonable after 10 years and I would have thrown it out after that because Giclees are fashion items and will go out of fashion before they fade. Giclee is itself a word invented by the art marketing departments to add value.

I would expect an etching made in the traditional way to last at least a 100 years but I would be dead by then so not my worry.

 

[alaskanframer]

Wow

I think there for I am.

 

[Dave]

Collectors or afficionados wanted a print from early on in the process for this reason, it wasn't so much the edition size as the quality of the earlier prints. Print 1 is better than print 80 and a collector wants print 1.

...

Actually the quality of print #1 (if properly ordered) is usually not the best print. The best quality print is usually a print that is a low number but further along in the printing. Very early prints often are too crisp and the plate may still have some burrs that wear down as the printing process takes place. Once a plate becomes too worn the prints lose their crispness and the image becomes too soft. It is then time to destroy the plate.

People like to pay more for A/P's and very low number prints but it is usually a fallacy that they are the best image.

Print #1 is probably of better quality than print #80 but not as good as print #10 or 12.

 

[preservator]

The most valuable books are manuscripts and printed books that have been decorated by artists.



Hugh

 

[CAframer]

The most valuable books are manuscripts and printed books that have been decorated by artists.
Hugh

For example the world’s most expensive book ever sold was Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Codex Leicester,” a notebook filled with original drawings, notes and sketches. It was sold to Bill Gates for $30.8 million in 1994.

 

[Jay H]

Giclee printing is mass publication ...whole numbering of them is unjustified and pure marketing hype in my view.

Numbering them or limiting them? Outside of marketing I can't imagine why one would limit digital output. Numbering them seems like a completely logical step to provide an accurate history of that image.

An etching is an original it is not a reproduction of a painting ...A giclee is a reproduction not an original work of art.

Yea they are different. They look different. They're not really even the same animal. Unless one were to misrepresent what they have then what is the importance of this distinction?

A giclee is a reproduction not an original work of art. Reproductions are decoration not Fine Art and designed to have a limited shelf life usually one generation, the person that bought it and liked it. They don't have any inherent value so don't expect it to be an investment.

This is really the only place I disagree. I'm going to try hard to not get into semantics over what is "real art" and what is not. How an artist distributes their work and why a person buys it has nothing to do with it's life expectancy or value. I can't even understand the need to quantify that.

I am finishing a project today that I've been working on for weeks. I'm printing and packaging every single image in my portfolio. What does the fact that they are digital output have to do with anything from today forward? Really nothing. There are so many other factors that will determine their value and the fact that they were printed aren't even the top 50 factors.

I don't think archival anything is relevant although no one wants their picture to disappear after a year so I would expect a reasonable quality of ink and paper. I would expect my Giclee to look reasonable after 10 years and I would have thrown it out after that because Giclees are fashion items and will go out of fashion before they fade.

I really sense something deeper here. I'm not sure what but there is a certain disdain for a product that seems off. I really don't consider my work a "fashion item" and I do take my photography seriously. What my customers call my work or what they expect out of it is really none of my concern. I'd be honored if it were as important to them as it is to me. To some I'm sure it is. To others, maybe not. As long as their check clears it's really none of my business.

Anyway I wouldn't worry about the archivability of digital output much either. The papers and canvas is on average a very high quality. The pigment inks are incredibly stable IMO. I've had signage in my sunny window for a few years. It shows no signs of fading. Many "originals" you describe would be trash under the same conditions.

 

[Island View Jake]

Petengeth

You have a good point about limited editions and 'giclee's;' however, it could be that in the latter case, the market may be driven by the 'unknowing' consumer. I can certainly say that customers/clients will pay less for a 'one-off' ink jet photograph than they will for one of a limited edition, say 1/2/3 of 125 or 250. Their reasons may be out of kilter with the original reason for limited editions, but that's how the market has changed. A customer feels that he's getting something more exclusive than if it were an unlimited production. If that's what they want, someone's going to sell it to them, and why not.
And as regards 'giclee', that's just a French word for 'squirt', which is usually used to some great pretension in my opinion. I try to bring my clients back to earth with it's true description (ink-jet). They invariably appreciate my honesty.

 

[Jay H]

I can certainly say that customers/clients will pay less for a 'one-off' ink jet photograph than they will for one of a limited edition, say 1/2/3 of 125 or 250.

I'd like to hear your experiences on this. I have LE prints that I can't give away. There was a time when you couldn't keep the same image in stock. The limited nature of the art didn't follow the prescribed path of value. There are other images by the same artist and same number of prints that cost slightly less than a small home. To me there seem to be so many other factors than a few numbers jotted down in the corners.

Also could packaging have anything to do with it? Does the final presentation look different between open prints with no markings on it and a signed/numbered print?

 

[Petengeth]

Some interesting and thoughtful replies there, thanks.

Jay H
There's no disdain really in any particular product, reproductions are fine as long as they are not pretending to be something they are not. I am not accusing you of that by the way.

But there does seem to be a misconception by the public about what they are buying.

I don't know where this started, if it was publishers retailers artists or the consumer.

Photography I would class in the same analogy I used with etchings the printed photo being the art work itself.

I suppose my real bugbear is artists who paint a picture then get it scanned or photographed and then produce what I would term reproductions of an artwork. Not an artwork itself.

The photo can be printed a million times without any loss of the original intent so you could limit their number to add rareity value I can see that. But then that is a whole new debate about whether photography should be artificially limited in number when it is really the first mass produced artwork invented. Mass production can dilute the power of an image and devalue it in the emotional sense.

Dave,
I see your point about the first print not being the best but you know what I meant in general.

Jake
You have really proved what I mean by the consumer misconception and I have experienced that too.

Over here we now have LE cars and burgers and chocolate bars. It seems to have been so devalued now that there may be a backlash against the whole concept before long.

I won't name any names but when I was first framing there was a particular artist, of world reknown who people were out bidding each other to get a print of their work. These were reproductions of paintings as mentioned above.
We rarely framed one as they were strictly controlled by the publisher and most outlets were only selling them framed. At the end of my framing career I would get people ringing me up wanting to sell them, thinking they were valuable. They couldn't sell them anywhere, they had no value at all, this was what I meant as fashion.

 

[Jay H]

Petengeth, I really am mostly an outsider in these discussions because other than reproducing some art for a few clients, I don't deal in "art" . It's because I create my photography digitally (I don't use the word “giclee”) that is my main interest in these discussions.

It was just a month or so ago I spent a great deal of time deciding how I was going to sell my work. It was not a decision I made casually. I mulled over many of the topics being brought up recently. Thanks for bringing this up in a much more civil manner.

...world reknown who people were out bidding each other to get a print of their work. These were reproductions of paintings as mentioned above. ...At the end of my framing career I would get people ringing me up wanting to sell them, thinking they were valuable. They couldn't sell them anywhere, they had no value at all, this was what I meant as fashion.

I guess any number of things could have happened there. Did they sell to many? Did the collectablity of the images go away? Is it really the fact that it was digital output cause the lack of interest in the item?

 

[Petengeth]

That's interesting as I am also thinking of how to sell my photographs.

What did you decide in the end? Have you started yet? And finally... is it working?

 

[Jay H]

They started selling well before I nailed down my "system". Yes they continue to sell and sold one photo yesterday. My current design just went live this week. Is it an overwhelming success? I dunno yet but I suspect it will work fine.

Before I printed my photos and framed some. They are mostly all still on the walls and rarely sold.

Then I printed them smaller and matted them all with a 16x20 OD. Packaged and in the rack at $30 they were selling well. Many would buy more than one. That worked great but I wanted a really nice package but without all the work of mounting and matting the photos. Plus I was thrilled to sell them at $30, and may continue that, but it seemed a little cheap. They were signed, on the mat, but not numbered, no title, do date, no copyright nothing....it was simply a matted photo. I didn't like that either.

Then I designed up a print that had all the information I wanted and here is what I came up with.

The paper is 11x14. You can guesstimate the image size. Roughly 10x12ish. These get a matboard backing out of scrap and a plastic bag. I'm selling these for $20.

What you see below the print is first the title. After that the date. Below that still in the center is my logo/name. The bottom left has the print date, the edition number and size (editions are 4 prints), the print number, and the print specs (paper type/ink type etc). At the bottom right is my name and copyright info and death threats if you steal my work. What isn't pictured is my signature that goes directly below the image on the bottom right.

I think this has a clean look. It has all the info I wanted on the prints. It's easy to package and less expensive than matting them. They are smaller to fit more in a print rack and sell at a really nice price point.

Oh I need to bring my camera in and take a pic of my custom print racks that I made for these prints!

Whatcha think? Look like something you can use?

Good luck with your project. I wanted to get this done before Christmas and I just baily made it. I'll know soon enough how the packaging and price is recieved.

What are you thinking about doing?

 

[Petengeth]

Those look really good. Do you sign them so they can be matted just showing title and sig then?

People matting them would probably want to cover the more detailed info at the bottom if framing?

Very nicely presented, very slick, very impressed. I am nowhere near having an outlet for mine yet, but this is a great idea for presentation.

 

[Candy]

Jay,

Nice presentation!!! Do you sign in the picture or under the picture.

Duh, I just reread that, it is signed below the image.

 

[Jay H]

It was designed specifically for signing. If you will notice the gap between the bottom of the image and title, you will see a nice space to sign. When matting you can show just the image. You can then show just my sig or my sig and the title. The date is small but you can go down just a bit more and include that. There are lots of options. No you will not be forced to cut the title in half to show the sig or anything like that. I specifically wanted to avoid that.

It's interesting that being a framer we notice those things.

One of the biggest things that irritate me is photographers who use cheap odd colored mats and sign that. The owner doesn't want to abandon the mat becuase it's signed.

 

[UTA KIRCHLECHNER]

The paper is 11x14. You can guesstimate the image size. Roughly 10x12ish. These get a matboard backing out of scrap and a plastic bag. I'm selling these for $20.

What are you thinking about doing?

Jay,
these prints look very good - but you are making them to look like a poster not fine art. For $20 i hope you have calculated all your supplies, time etc. If you want to sell posters, then the price still seems to be low - put at least $30 on them for that size. You won't be able to sell them as fine art since to you started posters....
But one never knows, in this economy postering might be the way to go.... or printing on canvas.
Happy printing.
Artfully yours
Uta
Island Art Gallery
www.kennedystudiosmv.com

 

[Jay H]

Posters?

What exactly would you call a poster? I'd call a poster a very inexpensive highly mass produced print.

Do you mean the layout? I have no desire to be a high end collectable photographer. Many of those that are at the top of their game or desire to be have adopted some variation of the design above. The first few times I saw that type of layout I had similar thoughts. But I kept seeing it over and over again. I drew much of the inspiration from LensworkMag. Most of their prints are sold exactly like that. There are some rather big names in that industry that sell prints via that mag and with that design. That publication is geared toward a slightly refined collector. The notion of it being a poster and not "fine art" would certainly be an insult to them. Not me, but them.

My interest is price points and proffits over nouns. I am interested in labeling something for exactly what it is. It's all the ways that we use to determin things like this that I'm trying to figure out. Often I don't understand the distinction and I don't understand this one either.

I do have a personal hangup about printing photos on canvas. I can tolerate a painting printed on canvas. The “tooth” of the canvas doesn't seem out of place. Eh I'm 50/50 about watercolors and the like printed on canvas because watercolor paper has a heavy grain to it. Photos on canvas completely distract me. I doubt I'll ever entertain the idea of printing my photos on canvas. Well unless somebody was willing to shell out the cash. I'm a tramp, what can I say?

I'm unsure about pricing. I feel better about increasing pricing rather than decreasing. The experiment has started though. I show the work of another photographer who is far better than I. He is selling the exact same sized prints for $50. At the end of the day we will know who is making more money.

 

[Blackcat]

Hey Jay H,

I would suggest you might want to try keeping the image size the same but making the paper size a little smaller than 11x14. I say this because if someone did want to mat just the image and not show the space around it, then they would either have an awkwardly uneven mat or they would need to cut part of the paper off. I think its great how you designed the bottom part with so much thought as to what information could or could not show.

As for the comment that they have the essence of a poster, I am inclined to say I feel the same way. Whenever I see printed text and/or crisp straight edges on an image, I think poster or mass produced prints (even if you told me there was only the one, it still looks like a mass produced work). I always suggest to my clients, whether they have an actual poster or work more like yours, to use the mat to cover up all the text and even the border of the image. At least then, as long as the viewer isn't right in front of the work, it gives the impression of being an original work of art.

I do agree with you about printing photo giclees on canvas. I just don't like the look and think the canvas texture is out of place. However, I still have my dislikes of a painting giclee on canvas. Even though it is a more fitting look, I hate how so many people buy one thinking they just bought a real original painting. This is only made worse when the maker of the giclee put the "varnish" over it mimicking real brushstrokes. They can look so much like a painting that so many people can't tell they just bought an expensive fake. When I ask our upset customers why they thought it was real, it is often because the seller kept referring to the giclee as a painting so the buyer thought "giclee" was a type of paint.

 

[Jay H]

They would have to mat it bigger than 11x14 anyway. The boarders are to small as they are. The top is about an inch.

If I just cut the photo out and glued it to a matboard and stamped the back with a ink stamp would that presentation be more artsy? That's how many Adams photos are presented.

I could present photos in a more traditional fashion. That is not the direction photography is going. Here are examples of how many digital photographers are presenting their work. http://www.lenswork.com/specialeditions/lwfolios.htm There are several film guys in that collection that scan their negatives and still print their photos digitally in the "poster" format. Even if you have no interest in understanding the ways of modern photography there is some really inspirational photography there to look at.

Do you really think people are buying prints on canvas, even with fancy coating, and think they are getting an original art piece? I suppose it could be true but it wasn't my gut. I don't see that as an artist error unless they specifically try to pass them off as a painting. If they don't do that, I do not believe that presentation is misleading as much as it is consumer ignorance.

 

[Robert Montgomery]

A giclee is a reproduction not an original work of art.

Acting is an original. A movie of the acting is a reproduction in a different format from the original.

Live music is an original. A c.d. or downloadable digital song (like on Itunes) is a reproduction in a different format from the original.

Painting is an original. A giclée of the painting is a reproduction in a different format from the original.

So therefore, giclées are not original works of art because they're reproductions, while movies, music c.d.s and downloadable digital songs are?"

Why the double standard?

Robert

 

[SportShots]

You sell for what you believe your work is worth. Michael Kenna prints about 8 inches at the most and his work sells for $1000 and up. Original prints, not pixelography.

I know Lens Work and the editors view that more prints sold at cheap prices means more people get to see and own the work. That is one view. The work I appreciate is generally printed by hand by the photographer. Each print is an original and as they print over the years the nature of the image does change a bit. Some more than others but maturity and changing artistic vision forces some change.

Original hand done prints are limited for good reason. You can't print thousands of one image. There just is not time enough in life to do so. You forego new work to keep printing the same image over and over. Signed and numbered editions are one way to keep from having to do the same one forever. A set limit means you print and then move on. Real 'limited' editions, not the pure BS of Kinkade ####.

David Vestal did a survey of many photographers and limited editions some years back and found most who printed limited editions did more prints of most images than those who did not limit it at all. The average for non-numbered series worked out to be about 5 prints total of any one image. Not numbered so you don't have the cachet of a 'numbered print edition' but rarity was there simply because most photographers don't print that many of any one image anyhow.

Giclee? For what it is it can be excellent. I refer to my digital work as Pixelography. Most of it is printed by my lab. ALL my B&W work is printed by me, by hand. Hand coated platimum/palladium or hand poured carbon prints. Hand printed silver prints.(traditional B&W). Hand poured wet plate collodian. Limited for one very good reason, I don't have time enough to spend doing a hundred prints of any one image. I will print, put the negative away and revisit it again later. My notes tell me how many I have printed of that negative and I number each print as well as write the printing date. My greatest number is about 50 now for any one print. A few I have told folks 'no more' and directed them to some who had purchased prints if they really wanted to buy one.

A few prints I have done in limited numbers, signed and numbered. An edition of 12 with two Artists proofs, one for me and one for a gift to someone I thought deserved one for whatever reason. Then no more of that print at any size. Cards or posters, yes. But no more originals printed by me or 'giclee'/inkjet/pixelographs again. The edition of twelve was it.

A few editions like this I have put out as available in any size up to what I think is the maximum I am comfortable with. Look at one and decide what size you want and I print it to that size. Counts as one more done to reach the final limited number. After that number, no more. A few I have done like this have sold out and I went to those who bought them and asked if they had any problems with my printing one more for a public show... to be destroyed after the show. This so their image was not devalued and the limited edition stayed limited. Again, inquiries as to print availability was referred to those who owned one of the limited number.

Kinkade marketing stinks and is not limited except by gullibility of the buying public. Real limited editions allow an artist to move on, in many cases it forces the move. With any luck it also stimulates new and more creative exploration rather than doing the same old thing again and again.

A print is worth what you get for it. Honesty in the marketing and printing and labeling helps a lot. Respecting your audience and purchaser is something I believe is important. Some buy hoping for investment increase. Some buy because they like the print... that is who I prefer to sell to. But, if you have the money I won't quibble too much in most cases.

Want to see B&W that is excellent? Try these four. Michael A. Smith, Paula Chamlee, Tillman Crane, Chuck Kimmerle. Each works in B&W. Michael and Paula are married, very different work. Tillman works only in platinum/palladium. Chuck is entirely digital. All sell well and produce top notch quality and none sell for $20 a print. You just can't do that and earn enough to live.

 

[Jim Miller]

...So therefore, giclées are not original works of art because they're reproductions, while movies, music c.d.s and downloadable digital songs are?"

Why the double standard?

Robert

That is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

You are correct that giclees are not original works of art, because every one of them is a digital/electronic/mechanical reproduction. Since the creation exists only as a digital file, there is no tangible original.

An original work of art, such as a painting, is a material creation by the hands of an artist. The result exists in real time.

If there is anything in between a giclee and an original artwork, perhaps it is a traditional photograph, since a negative exists to represent the artist's original creation.

Second, there is no such double standard associated with performance art and tangible art -- whether it is an original or a reproduction.

Anyone can enjoy tangible art by visiting the location where it exists, whether it is in a residential hallway or the Louvre.

It is impossible to enjoy the original performance of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" by the Beatles, or watch the original staging of "Macbeth", because original moments of time are intangible and impossible to capture. We can only record them.

The comparison of original vs reproduction does not apply here.

 

[Jay H]

...none sell for $20 a print. You just can't do that and earn enough to live.

It seems that we are following a similar path in our photography - art and sports. My art photography is $20 - $30 range for small prints. A typical sports order is about the same but I have much more work in sports photography. While I enjoy both, I much prefer art photography. Even at $13.50, that you charge for an 8x10, make 10 fold in sports photography what I do in art photography.

Id say in the last 6 months since I moved out all the print art from my gallery and went to all photography I have outsold my counterpart who asks about what Chuck Kimmerle does about 10 to 1.

Original hand done prints are limited for good reason.

I guess the question is if that edition is limited from the beginning of the printing process? I fully understand the digital artists lowly status in the photography hierarchy but that question remains. A digital file is really no different than a physical negative. You can print both any time you desire.

A few years ago I found a box of dads old negatives from his photography days. We had assumed these were long gone. I processed a few of those using his old dark room gear. I had to use new chemicals and paper because his old stuff was no good but my prints came out remarkably similar to his.

Digital and film is really only limited by the artists, or their estates, desire to reproduce the images. There is no immovable force that limited the production of one of your images.

David Vestal did a survey of many photographers and limited editions some years back and found most who printed limited editions did more prints of most images than those who did not limit it at all.

This does get to the heart of this discussion (and the other recent one). A LE print does not make it more rare. It does not make it more valuable. It doesn't make it more collectable. If anything it is a marketing strategy and that's about all.

In that article he was only speaking to the actual number of prints in existence in LE prints and open edition prints. His argument was that open edition prints are most often far more rare than LE prints. That's not suggesting that they are more valuable or that an artist should or shouldn't number them.

Adams didn't limit his work and he is probably one of the most collectable photographers out there. Even stuff printed today go for a ransom.

Does a giclee have any value and is it worthy of archiving? If we're being honest I do not believe that in terms of raw value and collectablity that digital prints are any less rare or valuable than any other reproduction. I would agree that it does make art more accessible to more people because of the low cost and ease of accurate reproduction. At the end of the day there is more artwork at our disposal than the public will ever need or purchase. That means that except for a few rare lucky souls their art will never be mass-produced to the point of being worthless. I believe the photo “Solitude” is the number one selling photo in the US. There is probably more copies of that out in every size known to man than most wallpaper runs. I don't suspect that bother$ the photographer one bit. Also if the photographer were to produce a few dozen high quality copies of it, I suspect those prints would be infinitely more collectable and desirable than the gazillion posters out there.

 

[Jay H]

Since the creation exists only as a digital file, there is no tangible original.

If there is anything in between a giclee and an original artwork, perhaps it is a
traditional photograph, since a negative exists to represent the artist's original creation.

Well there is a fine line if ever one existed. I think there is a good deal of photography snobbery, that will exists for a while, that would make that distinction with you.

I'm amazing how fragile both film and digital is. Archiving them are equally difficult. Without the aid of a computer, positive, or light-table both are equally worthless. Both have to be processed into a finished product.

For the life of me I can't understand why insignificant distinctions of tools reins over the encouragement of freely exploring art in whatever form it's presented. I was chatting with a photogrpahy teacher that said that the best grade an image shot without a tripod can receive is a “C”. A guy put in charge of exploring an art-form puts such a limitation on the art is ludicrous. Now artist want to limit the acceptances of art because of how it's produced? I'm thrilled that it mostly happens in small circles like this and among artists. The buying public is mostly disinterested.

Annie Leibovits was in an interview and the interviewer was trying desperately to get her to participate in the pointless argument over digital/film. She tried a few times to side step the topic having no interest in it. After quizzed the third time she said, "It's about content - It's always been about content."

I think, for the most part, that applies here. How we print images has changed drastically over time. Be it an etching, silkscreen, wet-processed photo, inkjet print, they are all tools to share an image. Clearly each have nuances that make that process unique. That's really where the similarities end. When the discussion moves from nuances to the bigger picture like cultural relevance, value, rarity, desirability and quality they are all mostly on a level playing field.

 

[Robert Montgomery]

That is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

You are correct that giclees are not original works of art, because every one of them is a digital/electronic/mechanical reproduction. Since the creation exists only as a digital file, there is no tangible original.

An original work of art, such as a painting, is a material creation by the hands of an artist. The result exists in real time.

If there is anything in between a giclee and an original artwork, perhaps it is a traditional photograph, since a negative exists to represent the artist's original creation.

Second, there is no such double standard associated with performance art and tangible art -- whether it is an original or a reproduction.

Anyone can enjoy tangible art by visiting the location where it exists, whether it is in a residential hallway or the Louvre.

It is impossible to enjoy the original performance of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" by the Beatles, or watch the original staging of "Macbeth", because original moments of time are intangible and impossible to capture. We can only record them.

The comparison of original vs reproduction does not apply here.

My comparison is not "apples to oranges", and there is a double standard and my comparison of original vs. reproduction does apply.

Movies are respected as original works of art, even though they're reproduced from acting scenes.

Downloadable songs and music c.d.s are respected as original works of art, even though they're reproduced from music recording sessions.

You claim that movies and music recording sessions don't qualify as originals because they are intangible, but that's not so. You can go to the movie set and touch the actors and the sets and costumes. You can go to the recording studios and touch the musicians and musical instruments.

The fact that the movie-making and the music recording is transitory is irrelevant.

Let me give another example. What if an artist prints reproductions of a painting, and then destroys the painting that the giclees were reproduced from? According to your analogy, that would mean that the reproduced giclees are now original works of art, because you can't go back and touch the painting because the painting was destroyed and it was transitory. It would be a false claim, however. The giclees would still be reproductions, regardless of whether or not the painting that they were reproduced from still exists.

Another example of the discrimination that widely exists against reproduction giclees is books. Books are reproductions of authors' manuscripts. The books are respected as original works of art (or literature), even though they were reproduced from an original manuscript.

So my comparison still stands. There is widespread discrimination against giclees, which doesn't exist against other creative formats.

1. Movies are respected as original works of art, even though they're reproduced from acting.

2. Music c.d.s and downloadable music tracks are respected as original works of art, even though they're reproduced from music recording sessions.

3. Books are respected as original works of art, even though they're reproduced from manuscripts.

4. Giclees, on the other hand, are widely disrespected as original works of art, even though they've been reproduced from original works of art in the same vein that movies, music recordings and books are.

It's important to distinguish between the two meanings of the word "original".

A) One meaning concerns whether or not the art was reproduced from another art form.
B) The meaning that I'm concerned about primarily is whether or not the artwork was derived directly from the hand of the artist and under the supervision of the artist.

According to that second definition, I believe that movies, music cds, downloadable songs, books and giclees should all be considered original works of art if the artist who created the acting, music recording sessions, painting, drawing or writing is directly involved in the creation of the subsequent reproduced art: the movies, music cds, downloadable songs, books and giclees to such a degree that the resulting artworks fulfills the artistic vision and technical requirements of the creator.

(Photography is in a separate category because the originals are the negatives or digital files, which – unlike acting, musical performances, paintings, drawings and book manuscripts – aren't generally viewed as works of art on their own and therefore aren't generally showcased and made salable as works of art on their own. Rare book manuscripts are sometimes showcased, for example, in museums, but that doesn't happen with negatives and digital photo files, because negatives and digital photo files are not works of art; they're only used to print photos and it's the photos that are showcased as the works of art. For this reason, all photographs are originals (according to the A) definition above) because they're not generally reproduced from another artistic format that's exhibited as works of art in their own right.)

The methods used to make the giclees or other artwork shouldn't be the issue. What's important is not the mechanics involved, but the message that the artist wants to convey and how he conveys it. Marshall McLuhan, Canadian philosopher was wrong; the medium is not the message. The message is the message, and the medium is the vessel by which the artist conveys the message. Unfortunately, there are many art snobs who try to hijack the artists' message by claiming that the medium is the message and that the message is sullied if the wrong medium is employed to convey the message.

Robert

 

[Framar]

Robert - I hate to come off sounding like one of those uppity picture framing Gods that you have been railing against, but do you honestly expect anyone to read posts that are that long???

Lulu.com is a wonderful website where anyone can upload and publish a book. You might want to look into that.

Yikes.

 

[SportShots]

Limited and open editions as well as Pixelographs compared to traditional or Alt process photographs all have one thing in common. If the image isn't any good... it isn't any good.

To quote Paula Chamlee, noted B&W photographer and a good friend: "It's not what it is, it's how it looks".

If the photos look good you have a better chance at selling them.

The method of making the print matters to some of us. Hand crafted fine images are limited no matter how much we want it otherwise. Time and energy limit how many can be made by the photographer. Pixelography printed on whatever printer you like is basically unlimited and really brings in the old George Eastman line 'you push the button and we do the rest'. Hundreds to thousands of prints are made by the inkjet/whatevergigaprinter you choose. All the same and all done quickly. Some with top flight materials and some to fade off the paper within months. The fading and lousy printing is nothing new. The world has benefitted from this in traditional photography since its beginning by those who don't take care, those who are too cheap and try to stretch chemistry... their images fade away and the world is often a better place for it.

Shoot what you will and print how you will, but print quality images. It is the image that counts. If value is pushed based on how it was made you are doing something wrong. If value is augmented by the personal touch of the artist, so much the better.

 

[Robert Montgomery]

Robert - I hate to come off sounding like one of those uppity picture framing Gods that you have been railing against, but do you honestly expect anyone to read posts that are that long???

Lulu.com is a wonderful website where anyone can upload and publish a book. You might want to look into that.

Yikes.

The same thing could be said about long threads. People read long threads, so why not long messages? If people have the patience to read long threads, they have the patience to read long messages.

Also, if it's too much trouble to read my long messages, don't bother reading them. You're insulting me again, just as you did in the other thread, where you claimed falsely that I have my 'nose in the air' and claimed that I use words that are too big for you. If you have trouble reading, don't read, or you might want to look into taking reading comprehension course, instead of insulting me. (On second thought, a reading course is too ambitious for you.)

Complicated topics require expounding, and that means lots of words. If you don't have the patience or intellectual capacity to wade through it, you're free to watch "Sesame Street" instead, and leave the adult topics for others. You keep on coming across as a school drop-out with your anti-intellectual comments and denigration. Did you even graduate from high school? I doubt it. I assume from your stupid criticism that you don't read books. Your attention span is probably too short even to read comic books from cover to cover.

Why do you assume that every reader here has an attention span as short as a five-year-olds? Just because yours is that short it doesn't mean everyone else's is. The fact that you haven't considered that some people who are interested in expanding their horizons might find my thoughts interesting and can sit still for more than a minute shows even more what a numbskull you are.

You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder. If you treated your customers as rudely as you treat me, you would have been out of business a long time ago. It seems that you want to start another flame war, by going off-topic and insulting me again.

You're a pinhead and a redneck, and you've made that even more evident than you did in your rants against me in the other thread.

Robert

 

[Jay H]

You're insulting me again...

If you have trouble reading, don't read, or you might want to look into taking reading comprehension course, instead of insulting me. (On second thought, a reading course is too ambitious for you.)

You're a pinhead and a redneck...

(sigh)

 

[Mike Labbe]

You're a pinhead and a redneck...

Unfortunately, one of our guests seems intent to disrupt the forum; in spite of a previous 10 day "timeout" to banned camp. It's fine to disagree, but it takes a bigger person to do so with tact and professionalism. Personal attacks are not welcome on The Picture Framer's Grumble.

The volunteers that moderate this forum try to do so with a laid back style, as not to stifle discussion. The policies are meant to be "Common Sense", as if we are guests in Framer's home. However, there are limits.

In this case we received several "moderator alerts", suggesting that it might be best to show this person the EXIT. That is exactly what we have done.

Good riddance!

Mike

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of The Picture Framers Grumble will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of The Picture Framers Grumble, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of The Picture Framers Grumble reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.
Main Rules

1. Be Nice.
2. If you can help someone please do.
3. A debate with strong opinions is fine; however, DON'T GET PERSONAL.
4. Remember #1
5. This site only works because of 100's and 1000's of great picture framers from around the world coming together here, networking to say what works for them. Please respect your fellow framers and the time it takes to help you with whatever problem you put forth.
6. Remember this is a two way street.

 

[Jay H]

Mike. Will you please remove his origional posts, my response and this post as to keep this thread on track somewhat?

Thanks.

 

[shopmonkey cpf]

Again... " I'm with you fellers...!"
---O Brother Where Art Thou?

 

[Petengeth]

Robert,

If you really think that a movie is a reproduction of an acting scene you are getting a bit deperate.

The acting scene would never have taken place if the intention was not to make the movie. The movie is the art work. The acting the paint.

A film taken of a play acted out on stage isn't a movie, it's a reproduction of a theatrical drama.

The book isn't the art work the content is, it could be the original manuscript or a mass produced copy produced a 100 years leter. A 2009 paperback of Robinson Crusoe isn't an art work in itself. The story is.

The story doesn't exist in itself until you read it. The art is then tranferred to your brain. The words are the same printed on paper or canvas in black ink or red ink or even on a computer monitor.

 

[Mike Labbe]

I'm not a fan of censoring old posts, unless they caused someone harm, and I don't think we see that here. You can get it back on track again, by answering one of the older posts and quoting it.

Mike

 

[Pat Murphey]

Mike,

No excuses for the banned individual, but the thread was "debate" until this post. I wonder why defending giclees raise hackles in the way that defending Kinkead does? We should all calm down.

Robert - I hate to come off sounding like one of those uppity picture framing Gods that you have been railing against, but do you honestly expect anyone to read posts that are that long???

Lulu.com is a wonderful website where anyone can upload and publish a book. You might want to look into that.

Yikes.

 

[drandall]

There seems to be some misunderstanding about digital reproductions in general. I think because it is produced through a computer it is assumed that it is easy to create.

Offset photo lithography has been a standard method of printing both posters and at a higher level limited editions for many many years. No one to my knowledge seemed to care that a limited edition was produced as offset technology for the last fifty or more years but now that it can be done in your garage it's viewed as a lesser thing despite the fact that the color and resolution is better than or equal to almost any other kind of printing technology. It's true not all giclee are created equal. There is an unfortunate large quantity of poorly done images called giclee.

Not very many folks are creating true original images from the computer but it is being done as well as mixing digital inks with more traditional media. It's a godsend to the arts community that most could not have dreamed of not long ago.

It's just a new tool in the end.