[Baren]: The mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking.

Baren Digest             Wednesday, 14 January 1998     Volume 02 : Number 035

------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Patrick Robinson <psyberdude@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:49:04 -0500
Subject: [Baren 140] Re: 'At the Gallery' 

Aloha Everyone:

In [Baren 137], David wrote:

>Maybe somewhere 
>in the world there might be galleries that really do act 
>simply as a 'conduit' between artist and consumer, 
>explaining each side to the other and truly adding value 
>to the transaction, but I think they must be very few and 
>far between.

All too often I hear artists speaking of art galleries as a "necessary 
evil". OK, I suppose that's a fair description . . . of SOME art 
galleries. But there are also a great many galleries which do indeed 
serve as that "conduit" David spoke about. It is precisely in the area of
"explaining each side to the other", as well as providing a space in 
which to artfully display the artwork, that the gallery folks feel that 
they EARN their share of the sale.

Some art dealers and gallery salespeople, however, treat the artwork as 
little more than a commodity, and use whatever means they can to "sell" 
the art. This is where the problem of limited editions begins! As David says:

>It is an attempt to maintain an artificially high price for a commodity by 
>restricting the supply available.

I'm in somewhat (but not full) agreement with David. The aspect of rarity
is, for better or worse, one of the prime ingredients of value 
determination. If there's LOTS of something, then it should obviously be 
less expensive than if there is a scarcity, depending upon how many 
people are interested in having the item in question. In the world of prints, 
one of the ways in which market-movers attempt to capitalize on 
this idea of rarity is by "limiting" the number of prints to a certain 
number, and indicating this on the print itself. They have done an 
outstanding job of "branding", too. I rarely find a customer who doesn't 
ask "how many are in the edition" when I show them works on paper from 
our print cabinets. 

But in the marketplace of art something else effects the price of an 
object besides rarity, and that is the degree of perceived difficulty in 
creating that object. And either the artist or his/her gallery 
representative must help to explain the "hows" and "whys" of the artwork 
to the prospective buyer so as to get across the aspect of creative 
difficulty, if this is to be effective. This is especially true in the 
case of woodblock prints.

We are actually speaking about the craftsmanship of "hand-work" here in 
this woodblock forum, not something mass-produced by machines. But, 
unfortunately, most of what we know as "fine art prints" actually has 
little or nothing to do with artistic handwork. Instead, photomechanical 
reproduction techniques are being utilized to create the "artwork". The 
only true artistry is in the image, not in the execution of that image. 
Little wonder that the marketing people are so eager to push the idea of 
"limited edition rarity" . . . they can't talk much about anything else 
in the way of artistic merit.

In our gallery, we handle mostly "original" prints (from the 16th thru 
the 20th century). . . those created by the artist, by hand. However, 
most of the other 100 or so art galleries in our area do sell limited 
edition reproductions. If they are selling a print for $100 done by a 
well-hyped regional "whale artist" who has ONLY published 1,500 prints 
(this print being #18/1500, "thus being one of the first from the limited
edition") and I am offering a Japanese woodblock print by a fellow named 
David Bull (without any edition numbers) for the same price, I'd better 
be able to explain the difference in "value" between the two. Many art 
dealers have neither the technical ability or inclination to speak to 
this issue, and so they are quite happy to play the numbers game of 
perceived rarity. They are only perpetuating the myth of exclusivity and 
furthering the commodification of art.

By the way, I don't want to come across as a purist. We also sell 
reproductive prints in our gallery . . . lots of them. Especially the new 
Giclee or Iris prints on both heavy-weight deckled paper and canvas. But 
these are "decorative" prints, and are both priced and discussed as such. 
 What I would hope is that we not get so caught-up in the discussion of 
rarity, value and price that we forget THE one thing that attracts 
collectors - - the image, the art. 

If it's an attractive image, it will sell. If not, it won't. The only 
wild-card here is that what is attractive, what is "beautiful", lies (as 
David Bull has pointed out to us) within the eye of the beholder. So 
perhaps what we need is not fewer numbered limited editions, but rather 
more "beholders"!

At least that's my two cent's worth,

Patrick Robinson
Hana Coast Gallery
http://www.maui.net/~coast

------------------------------

From: David Bull <davebull@asahi-net.email.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:24:26 +0900
Subject: [Baren 141] Re: 'At the Gallery' 

Pat wrote:
> Aloha Everyone

It sure is nice to hear those words.  I just wish I was able to hear
them 'live' and not in an email.  It's ccccoooolllldddd in this here
apartment!


> If there's LOTS of something, then it should obviously be
> less expensive than if there is a scarcity, depending upon how many
> people are interested in having the item in question. 

This is of course simple 'supply and demand' at work, and I have no
quarrel with such a concept.  To go against it, would be to go against
human nature.  My problem is when people _artificially_ limit the supply
below what it _could_ be, with no other justification than to raise the
prices.  That's why I used the word 'dishonest'.  

(Graham earlier said:
>  Are antiques bad because there are so few of them available?

Of course not, but they weren't 'made' in a limited supply in the first
place.  When the day eventually comes that most of my prints have been
destroyed by fire, flood, war, Father Time, etc, then the few that are
left may be considered rare and expensive - because the supply is
'limited'.  That's fine with me.)


> But in the marketplace of art something else affects the price of an
> object besides rarity, and that is the degree of perceived difficulty in
> creating that object. 

I have found this to be true during the years of work on my 'poets'
series.  Perhaps not so much directly affecting the _price_, but
certainly making the prints more desirable for people to own.


> ... Giclee or Iris prints on both heavy-weight deckled paper and canvas. But
> these are "decorative" prints, and are both priced and discussed as such.

Pat may I ask, when you say 'priced as such', do you mean that these
have a lower price?  What kind of numbers are involved here?


>  What I would hope is that we not get so caught-up in the discussion of
> rarity, value and price that we forget THE one thing that attracts
> collectors - - the image, the art.

But David here would rather say:
... THE one thing that attracts collectors --- the beauty of the entire
OBJECT, and not just the image ...


> ... what we need is not fewer numbered limited editions, but rather
> more "beholders"!

Hear!  Hear!

Thanks for the reply Pat - I was a bit nervous about criticizing
galleries, knowing that we have an articulate gallery owner on [Baren],
ready to come charging out anytime!

Dave Bull

------------------------------

From: Patrick Robinson <psyberdude@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:12:27 -0500
Subject: [Baren 142] Re: 'At the Gallery' 

I first said:

>> ... Giclee or Iris prints on both heavy-weight deckled paper and canvas. But
>> these are "decorative" prints, and are both priced and discussed as such.

And then David replied:

>Pat may I ask, when you say 'priced as such', do you mean that these
>have a lower price?  What kind of numbers are involved here?

Hm-mmmm, I knew that I'd get myself in trouble here. OK, here it is: 
because of the ability to pull a "one-off" print using the Iris or Giclee 
process, artists tend to make a much smaller edition. While an off-set 
lithographic poster print in a "limited edition" of, say, 500 might 
retail for $125 to $150 each, these Giclees printed on a 400 gms weight 
deckled-edge paper in an edition of 50 may retail for $250 to $350. The 
higher figure is if printed on artist's canvas. So there is indeed a 
premium paid for the Giclee prints over the off-set lithos. 

What I was referring to, David, was that these prints are priced 
considerably less than "original" prints. I have a beautiful stone-plate 
lithograph, image drawn by Renoire, printed by the illustrious Paris 
lithographer Auguste Clot, c. 1905, that is trying to find a loving home 
for around $9,000. Just down the wall is an original woodblock print by 
Hiroshi Yoshida, c. 1935, for $1,800 framed. There's also a Rembrandt 
etching in superb condition, 2nd state of 3 lifetime impression for 
$13,500. These are market-driven appraised values, as opposed to the 
market-hype prices for numbered limited editions of off-set lithographs 
by the Batemans, et al. I suppose that is what I was talking about. 

Interestingly enough, few of the customers who would be interested in the 
Iris prints will even stick their heads into the Print Library where we 
keep all of our better original prints. Sad, but true! But in our 
galleries each customer is appreciated for their own individual taste 
levels. It's our delight to help these folks explore other levels, if we 
are allowed to do so, but we do not "tee-hee" at them behind their backs 
for a supposed lack of sophistication. I wish that attitude was present 
in more art galleries, especially in New York.

P.

------------------------------

From: Gary Luedtke <GLuedtke@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:09:18 -0500
Subject: [Baren 143] Re: 'At the Gallery' 

Patrick,
   What is the Giclee printing process?  I've heard it mentioned several
times but I'm afraid I don't keep up with the technology of modern
printmaking.   How is it done?  

   On the numbering of prints, I'll withhold comment, as it now seems
redundant to what's been  covered already, except for this sidestep.  
   As a Gallery seller in Hawaii, I was wondering if you've ever run into
collectors/buyers who prefer certain numbers of a print edition, not
because they may be earlier impressions and therefore theoretically
fresher, but because of Astrological reasons.   I sell my prints in
Honolulu, and it has come up several times that a buyer would request a
certain number, if available, because of an Asian belief (presumably) that
certain numbers are lucky, and certain numbers are ominous.  I've been
tempted (tongue-in-cheek) to poll what the "lucky" numbers are and number
all of my prints that way just to see how "lucky" I might get!   
  
   Dave, have you ever heard of such a thing? 
 
  I'd have to go back to see if I've kept that information, but as some
prints sell fast because of their number, I've had others that didn't move
because of their number.  Numbers before and after would go, and this one
would sit on the shelf for a year before some unsuspecting customer would
wrap up the piece of bad luck and take it home to a household soon to be
beset with misfortune.  

  Patrick,  a numbered print may give the buyer the sense of owning
something of limited availability, hence seem to increase its value.   Has
it been your experience that an unnumbered print cast the opposite
impression?    Side by side, a numbered print and an unnumbered print of
same quality, artist, materials, etc. would be valued by comparison how? 
You mentioned a handmade print versus a lithograph, how about simple value
of similarly made prints but #d vs. un#d? 

  Also, if you sell a large quantity of low priced prints, or a small
quantity of high priced prints, theoretically you make the same profit. 
How does this work out in actual practice?  And do you suppose the same
profit would occur over the same stretch of time?... that is the higher
priced ones selling sporadically, while the less expensive ones selling
more consistently?  What has been your experience with this?

Gary Luedtke

------------------------------

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:39:28 -0800
Subject: [Baren 144] Giclee Prints 

>Gary Luedtke wrote
>   What is the Giclee printing process?  I've heard it mentioned several
>times but I'm afraid I don't keep up with the technology of modern
>printmaking.   How is it done?

The Giclee printing process is a process that Hewitt Packard developed and
probably know to you as an ink jet printer.   It was developed for
commercial purposes. I have a little one that does a wonderful colour
output beside my computer. It's an Epson 800 and cost me $600.00 Can. The
Iris units are very large. Not sure of the biggest size available but there
is a unit in Nova Scotia that can handle a 40" sheet of anything.
Watercolour Slate , Canvas..... you name it they can print on it.  And
don't think this won't impresses the unsuspecting uneducated buyer.

To Dan. According to your input here (Baren) you are directing people in
honest and sincere way. Congratulation.   There is a little print shop in
Sidney here that floggs this stuff as important contribution to the fine
art field.

Iris Graphic Inc is on the leading edge of technology with this
sophisticated imaging process that produces Art Museum standards of Fine
Art Prints...... Where have you heard this bull shit (excuse me) before
....  Why of course .... Mill Pond Press 20 years ago.

The is an article in the recent Art Business New magazine about the Giclee
Address.  7500 Old Oak Blvd,   Cleveland  OH.  44130

 There is a lot a blah blah blah about the colour fastness and they are
using words in their advertising that claim them to be upward to 50 years.
I have read articles that claim only a 2-5 year time frame.
I met and talked to a person who is fairly high up at Hewitt Packard in
Portland OR. and he told me that the inks for this process are no better
than the commercial printing inks used in the reproduction field.  They are
trying to solve the fade problem but being they are dye base colours it is
not easy to solve.

It is going to change the print market forever.  There are going to be a
lot of people sucked up the garden path thinking they are getting something
that is a fine art form.
I have heard promoters doing it at trade shows and I know of artist that
believe in it as an Art form and promoting the stuff fast as they can.

Graham

------------------------------

From: David Bull <davebull@asahi-net.email.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 19:37:27 +0900
Subject: [Baren 145] Re: 'At the Gallery' 

Patrick wrote:
> a beautiful stone-plate lithograph, 
>    image drawn by Renoire ... ($9,000)
> an original woodblock print by Hiroshi 
>    Yoshida ... ($1,800)
> a Rembrandt etching in superb condition ... ($13,500) 

Pat, which of these prints have edition numbers?

Gary wrote:
> "lucky" numbers ...
> Dave, have you ever heard of such a thing? 

Never ...   For me - the 'lucky' number has been 'no number'!

Dave

------------------------------

From: Gary Luedtke <GLuedtke@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:37:30 -0500
Subject: [Baren 146] Giclee Prints 

    Thanks, Graham, for the information.
    Turns out that's what I have right beside my computer then too.  I also
have an Epson Color Printer which does a great job of color printing for
the money.  I use it for printing up my sketches, some of which I scan into
the computer, then work on with a few art programs.  I use this only
however for printing off the sketches for my own use, or to give my printer
some idea of the color development I'm looking for.  Comes in handy for
that.
   Thanks again.

Gary

------------------------------

End of Baren Digest V2 #35
**************************