Why Giclees Suck

[ricv64]

yeah, for sure, i always think of mark ryden, or any of those other talented painter guys. for them, giclees are a much better option than screenprinting.

Mel Ramos addrees that here

Mel Ramos gets hometown Sacramento show - SFGate

You lose the impact of the actual size . They could make a version of it in another medium like etching, engraving and keep printers working . The " article " makes the correct claim that people think they're buying an equivalent to the original artwork

[ronvin]

Glorified posters....

[phoondaddy]

As a painter, I've just begun having prints (on canvas, stretched) made of a few select works. I realized "most" people don't even think twice if it's an original or print, they just want pretty hanging on their walls. As well as some people may not be able to afford the original painting, but can spring for a print canvas. Hopefully someday, it will help me make a little more for each design, but right now, the prints aren't really moving. But being a full time artist has made me rethink the whole "giclee" (which my printer won't even say. He says archival print) issue. I'm speaking mostly about canvas prints, not paper prints. I'm still a traditionalist when it comes to that.

[crosshair]

yeah, for sure, i always think of mark ryden, or any of those other talented painter guys. for them, giclees are a much better option than screenprinting.

But those are reproductions. Not prints, designed as prints, separated as prints, conceived and produced as prints. Reproductions, of a painting. Which an artist sells to make $$ from a broader market than that which can afford a $10,000 painting. And that's fine as long as they are represented as reproductions, and not as something they are not.

And yeah giclee is a pretty convenient way to fart those out. But they are not original, the way a print made as a print from the ground up is original. And there is a qualitative difference there.

Nor are they limited, because unlike a situation where you'd have to prep and reprint 28 screens and still end up with something observably different than the original edition, there are no physical or economic barriers whatsoever to hitting Print and making ten more. Or one more. Limited doesn't just mean you print out 100 giclees and promise no more. It means that making more, would be a major undertaking even if you were so shitty as to do so.

FWIW I've seen screenprints that are indistinguishable from gickle in terms of resolution and color range. It can be done. But it takes skill, talent, and patience. Unlike printing gickles.

[Thornysarus]

This subject has been an irritant for me for quite some time now.

My take on the topic: Yes, I am a printmaker, however my editions are usually only 2 or 3 on paper I've made myself, and I consider each print to be an original work of art. I pick my favorite and that's the one I display. Often, there's a small number of proof prints, usually on cheaper paper, and those are signed and marked "Proof."

The IFPDA defines an original print "fine" as a work of art on paper which has been conceived by the artist to be realized as a print, rather than as a reproduction of a work in another medium. If I photographed, scanned or otherwise digitized my original and reproduced it by mechanical means (limited edition or not), it would be a "reproduction" and should be marketed and sold as such. Giclees, color copies, whatever… It's a reproduction.

The Problem: We have artists producing Giclee reproductions of an existing work, signing and numbering them and selling them as originals. This is not only deceptive, but it confuses the market. The grey area in all this is almost too commonplace. Artists are producing Giclee reproductions of an existing work, taking varnish to them to enhance brush strokes, painting in some color and selling them as "mixed media" originals. Well, ok… You did actually paint on it, so… You be the judge. I liken this practice to a craftsperson ordering machine-made quilts from China, sewing on a ribbon by hand and selling them as "Handmade."

To be clear: I'm not the least bit opposed to an artist reproducing his own work by whatever means he chooses. I'm opposed to an artist selling reproductions and limited editions as originals. And this isn't just happening with Giclees either.

It's worth discussing.

[crosshair]

I agree completely. And since I agree, I'm going to be a total cockwad and do something obnoxious that I completely hate: "play Devil's advocate."

How about a photographer?
What is the 'original'? Is it the negative? When he produces a single print in the darkroom, is that original? Or, fifty, signed & numbered? Is anything printed directly from the negative, original art? And would a reproduction be something made from copying a print rather than the negative? I don't know. Maybe there are professional standards.

But, moving into the digital age: the negative is now a bunch of charged particles on a sensor, saved in a form that is itself infinitely transportable and copyable, without any degradation whatsoever. It can in theory be printed (by digital means!) by anyone anywhere in possession of a copy of the file. So maybe the photographer prints fifty archival prints of this infinitely copyable file, signs, and numbers them. Is there any way this can be authentic? Or are they all by nature reproductions? Is it even possible to posess a truly original or limited edition photograph, recorded digitally?

Again there are probably professional standards, but I don't know what they are.

[robschwager]

heh... cockwad.

[zlandrum]

I'm currently working with a photography buddy of mine to do a small series of CMYK prints based on some of his photographs. I assume that makes it a piece of art and a print pretty easily without having to dive into that whole photography "what's the original, what's not" idea. Because then we'll be taking a photo, sepping it out and screen printing a small edition. I don't think my statements are contributing to this thread at all... but I'm trying to get my post count up.

[GiganticPanda]

I was always under the impression that Giclees were some kind of badass elite archival glossy high end print medium/technique used by museums or some shit. My face dropped when I realised they were just basically inkjet printers and are done with a mere click of a mouse.

[Andymac]

Photographs as fine art were the giclee of their day to the fine art establishment.

Same with screenprints. both have come to be accepted, but really, (and I have said this before) jumping up and down and quoting the fine art printmaking manual while defending your screenprints, most of you guys won't pass muster for any number of reasons, most having to do with archaic 'rules' around limited edition printmaking. i.e. - did you use an exposure unit? BWAAAAAAAAAP not allowed. Didn't hand make your positive? BWAAAAAAAAAAP not allowed. Didn't complete every step of the process yourself? BWAAAAAAAAP not allowed. Used an auto press? BWAAAAAAAAP not allowed.

Granted, the big distinction here is reproduction vs original print. Most people could give a shit. The ones that do are in a small minority.

The thing I find funniest about the whole thing is I used to talk to 'artists' around these parts who used to sniff at doing prints (in screenprinting or 'offset litho') as beneath them as serious artists. Now all the same people are banging out repros of their work in 3 different sizes and and canvas too with their trusty gickle printer.