Baren Digest Wednesday, 20 June 2001 Volume 15 : Number 1464 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Dew Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:05:58 -0400 Subject: [Baren 14885] Greg's post As Thomas Jefferson once said to John Adams; "Let us agree to disagree my friend, without harming this friendship we have built ..." or something like that. I do not have a lot of "artist" friends, other than you folk, so maybe I am viewing this debate from a different angle than some or all? I have a friend who was just salivating to show me this beautiful print his parents bought him for his birthday. They had spent over $5,000.00 to purchase for him an original, hand signed print that they thought he would love, and because he was friends with a "print artist" himself, would really appreciate. I bit my tongue sooo hard I probably drew blood, but I did not have the heart to tell him that the print was not an original but a giclee. When I sent out my postcards for the show, I had many of my non-artist friends who have never been invited to a show opening. Surprise, surprise, they thought the show was for one day only, the day of the opening. My fault for not explaining on the postcard that the show was for the month of June, but I "assumed" that they knew that. Which brings me to my point. The art world and those who frequent it, most likely know the difference between a giclee and a hand pulled original print. But the general public, our non-artist friends and a large portion of the uninformed and unknowing, DO NOT KNOW the difference. Should we educate them? If not us, then who? I like Maria's idea and plan to start using it as soon as possible. I like Eli's idea and hope we can come up with an agreeable product to "sell". And I do agree with a few of Greg's points. I personally and corporately support print shows with cash awards and purchase awards and encourage other corporations to do the same. But we cannot do "nothing", for by doing nothing, we allow the falsehoods to continue and thrive. dan dew ------------------------------ From: Aqua4tis@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:12:12 EDT Subject: [Baren 14886] Re: E-Bay i think jeans got a great idea here georga ------------------------------ From: Claude Villeneuve Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:25:13 -0400 Subject: [Baren 14887] Re: Fw: giclee Gary: There have been books written on how to identify prints - Many of them. Those who sell prints should take the time to learn about what they sell. The Quebec Council of printmakers has put out a Code of ethics of the original print 3rd edition just last year to deal with the questions of what is an original print, what is a reproduction, and to deal with the new types of prints that have evolved thanks to new technologies such as the photocopier and computer. It was written in response to printmakers who wanted to have a written definition of what is an original print and the definition of the various techniques. It was also written to help collectors and galleries that sell prints to be able identify and use the right terms when talking and explaining printmaking techniques. The Code of ethics of the original print (bilingual edition - French and English) is available through the Quebec Printmakers Council. You can email me off list if you want the address to contact them. Claude AimŽe Villeneuve (President of the Quebec Printmakers Council) ------------------------------ From: GraphChem@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:23:08 EDT Subject: [Baren 14888] Re: more on giclees Maria is right on the target - I think that we've all seen the T-shirts that advise "Good art doesn't match the couch." DEan ------------------------------ From: Claude Villeneuve Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:30:20 -0400 Subject: [Baren 14889] Re: Fw: giclee Second note to Gary: On the website of Polymetaal (the Netherlands) there is a very good dictionnary of terms available in many languages. www.polymetaal.nl/ The MOMA also has an interactive defition of original prints on their website. What is a print: http://www.moma.org/whatisaprint/noflash.html Claude AimŽe ------------------------------ From: Daniel Dew Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:40:45 -0400 Subject: [Baren 14890] Re: Fw: giclee This is a TOTALLY AWESOME link! dan dew > From: Claude Villeneuve > The MOMA also has an interactive defition of original prints on their > website.=20 > What is a print: http://www.moma.org/whatisaprint/noflash.html >=20 > Claude Aim=E9e ------------------------------ From: Steve Goddard Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:53:56 -0500 Subject: [Baren 14891] Re: "Fake" vs. "real" prints >But any commentary by us about what other people are doing, or what they >should be doing (or not doing), is pointless, ineffectual and distracting. > >As the Castilian peasants used to say (and maybe they still do, bless 'em!), >Haz bien y no mires a quien ('Do the right thing and don't look at other >people'), I think there is a lot of sense in this. In the 1960s the Print Council of America published a booklet trying to define what an original print is. With our hindsight this is now a dated and somewhat wrong-headed text. I prefer to encourage whoever is printing images, be they handmade woodcuts or photomechanical repros of one's paintings to just say exactly what their images are. One is a handmade woodcut, one is a photomechanical reproduction. I think this is more useful and more honest than saying that one is an original print and one is a limited artists' edition, or whatever. By getting into the whole business of distinguishing yourself from contemporary technologies, whether rightly or wrongly applied in the name of art, you risk being identified as retrograde luddites -- which perhaps some don't mind, but it doesn't help the cause of great woodcut prints much. It should also be emphasized that there are perfectly legitimate uses of giclee (which I prefer to simply call inkjet) printing, it is just another tool. So, I agree, make excellent woodcuts and everything else will fall into place. Steve ------------------------------ From: Claude Villeneuve Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:54:59 -0400 Subject: [Baren 14892] Re: ebay offer Barbara: I think an ad on ebay is a great idea. Printmakers have to voice their concerns and ebay has a wide audience! Claude AimŽe ------------------------------ From: Claude Villeneuve Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:31:32 -0400 Subject: [Baren 14893] Re: Greg's post I agree with Dan. We cannot do nothing! Printmakers are the ones who must bit by bit educate the general public on what is a print. Exhibits are one way, protesting and writing books and booklet and educational tools about printmaking and making them widely available is another. Demonstrations of the various printmaking techniques during an exhibit are also a great way for the public to understand what printmakers do. Claude AimŽe ------------------------------ From: Steve Goddard Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:52:17 -0500 Subject: [Baren 14894] Re: Greg's post >must bit by bit educate the general public on what is a print. Absolutely agree, didn't mean to neglect this in my last post. That is what some of us have spent our professional lives doing, its just that I think education is most effective when it focuses on the positive rather than on counter-examples - as you say, "on what a print is." Hope I wasn't misleading. I have no problem calling a reproduction a reproduction when I see one. I seem to recall that the IRS (the government tax office in the U.S.) have a way of determining if something is a reproduction or not; I think their rationale is as follows: "if there is an answer to the question, 'where is the original?' then work in question is a reproduction." This all gets very slippery since there are so many exceptions to almost any rule (as in all of life). So, this is why I prefer to focus on describing what something is rather than what it is not. Steve ------------------------------ From: Julio.Rodriguez@walgreens.com Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:55:02 -0500 Subject: [Baren 14895] Re: Greg's post 06/19/2001 11:55:28 AM Great discussion folks...there are some wonderful people on Baren whose posts always leave me thinking and a much enlighten person....Bill Ritchie, David Stones, Michael Schneider and of course Gregory Robison to name a few. Personally, I think it is always good to disseminate information on something you have a passion for.....as I posted last night...in a positive and educational tone. As Steve and others mentioned, describe what we do and what the prints are....w/o getting into the whole repro/giclee/orignal-print debate....just describe the terms and the process w/o condemning or w/o patting ourselves in the back. For those that know the facts already, fine....for those that don't care..fine...for those that read, understand anf obtain a greater appreciation for what we do....FANTASTIC. Perhaps next time thay are shopping on ebay..the will take the time to contact the buyer and ask a few questions about the art work for sale.....if nothing else happens...we would have made a connection. I would suggest that we get a few of the members long-time involved with academia and in running print groups (Steve, Claudee, Barbara...etc..) to perhaps point to or start on a rough draft....a working document that we can all agree with and back as printmakers.. thanks.....Julio ------------------------------ From: "Bill H Ritchie Jr" Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:14:22 -0700 Subject: [Baren 14896] "Fake" vs. "real" prints charset="iso-8859-1" I'm no longer a "joiner" but if I were forced to choose whose ship to join, I think I would join Gregory Robison. Some might think it's because we both have been influenced by Scottish heritage. It's somewhat frightening to think what power words have, and when associated with national or economic philsophy, such as Scottish or capitalist, and then mediated and spread around without much exactitude in meaning. Words strike fear into our hearts and, then, our mind. For some reason, I guess it has to be that way. OTOH, the same can be said for the opposite of fear, which to my own way of looking at things, is faith. Equal parts of fear and faith, someone said, keeps us locked in an undecided balance of opinion and then we don't do much, really, to change anything around us. We go along, hoping for the best, and call it faith in the unknown. Millions--no, trillions--of "dollars" exchange hands when millions of people take the risk of doing nothing, the wait-and-see attitude we usually practice because no one knows how things will turn out. Based on past performance, no print society, legal system or economic system has been able to effect a good life for a good printmaker. It is complicated. It is dynamic, though, and loads of fun for everyone. A couple years ago I joined a group that had convened to see the new IRIS printer in town. It was a mix of people--art dealers, artists, technical people. I was enjoying it immensely because it was like an old favorite Hollywood rerun--the same lines, but delivered by fresh, new actors. Until a young dealer turned toward me at the height of one particularly passionate demand for clarity on the topic of "What is an original print?" and she said, "Maybe we should ask Bill . . . what do YOU think?" The fun was over. I was on the spot! As a local expert, I guess I was supposed to issue the 11th commandment, right there in front of everyone. I felt like I'd been asked to take off all my clothes. But I didn't. I just said, in all honesty, "I just came to enjoy myself today. Let's not ruin it." and everyone laughed and continued to ask all kinds of questions. I don't know if that tells anyone anything. But really I did have a good time--and I love the giclee work I did that year. - - Bill ------------------------------ From: Sunnffunn@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:31:40 EDT Subject: [Baren 14897] Re: Dan's 2 cent disc idea I think there is a place for digital art and I think the Giclee has a place. I agree that galleries will be accepting discs, some do already and looking at web pages instead of slides. It is the future of the world. BUT the consumer needs to know and be informed about what they are buying. It is ok to sell a zerox copy and yes I know someone who sells them at the coast, very cheap and the people love buying them. It is ok to do giclee copies of work, it is cheap. This is part of our world and we need not offend those who are doing this type of thing. We need to inform, educate and try all we can to show the public and other artists what the difference is. I am a fine artist and until i found printmaking I did not truly know the difference. If someone gets a disc free in the mail they may throw it out with all the junk mail or they may open it. But than if you sell on ebay most will not buy a booklet about prints. Either way you will reach a minority of the people. But my feeling is that is not a reason not to do it, we still should get out there and give every educational effort we can. Bareners are the brightest and most talented artist group I have ever seen and if anyone should do this they should. We can reach world wide with an information network. We can truly make a difference and be a powerful network for education as well ans creating great work. Long winded me is leaving again and will see you guys in a day or 2. Marilynn ------------------------------ From: "kate courchaine" Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:04:31 Subject: [Baren 14898] Standard Print Definitions I have heard that in France they have legally defined 'print', and do make a distinction from a 'reproduction'. Kind of like the laws in the US governing product marketing-etc. Do we have any French members, or any one that has first hand knowlege of this law? Just curious... Kate Courchaine _________________________________________________________________ From: Shireen Holman Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:31:29 -0400 Subject: [Baren 14899] Re: "Fake" vs. "real" prints I agree with Gregory about not being contemptuous of people who choose a work of art on the basis of whether it looks good with their furniture. While I certainly would not buy art because it goes with my sofa, I do hang the works I own in certain places because they look good in that part of the room, or certain pieces look good together, etc. I firmly believe that a person's surroundings have a huge impact on the person - the ethical environment that one grows up in and lives in has major importance; the visual environment also has a major impact. The architecture of the buildings one inhabits as well as the arrangements of their contents make a difference. This is why people decorate their homes in ways that suit them; so maybe a person would prefer a work by Barbara that is large and colourful over one by Maria that might be small and black-and-white (not necessarily a realistic example! :)). However, I don't agree that it's pointless to try to educate the public. I think the issue here is not whether one should prefer original prints to reproductions. Reproductions have their place, and one might want to own one if one couldn't afford the original. I buy books of ukiyo-e prints because I want to look at them - I couldn't buy an original, but I value my books. The problem I see in this ebay case is one of fraud. It's not uncommon to find people trying to sell reproductions as 'original limited edition signed prints'. And, as Dan pointed out, many people really don't know the difference. In my experience, people often think any prints are reproductions - if they are multiples they can't be original artwork. This does need some clarification. A while ago I posted something about giclee reproductions of watercolour paintings that a gallery was selling as limited edition signed prints. There were several responses from people defending their use of the computer in their work, as though my criticism had been of the use of computers and ink jet printers. If artists themselves can get confused between using the computer as a tool and using it to create something like giclee prints of Utamaro's woodblocks, imagine how confused the non-art public might get. So I think it would be valuable to put something together not to distinguish between 'fake' and 'real' prints, but to explain what the various things that come under the category of 'prints' are, so that people will know what they are buying. Shireen ------------------------------ From: FurryPressII@aol.com Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:56:40 EDT Subject: [Baren 14900] Re: Standard Print Definitions I am like the old mole who does his thing and once and a while comes out to see what is going on and then goes back to doing what he has been doing all along. (mostly i don't want to tell others what to do, you can take the Scot out of Scotland but you can't take the Scot out of the Scot). I am a printmaker because i really love carveing wood, engraving it and even engraving some of these other materials (i think they are called copper & steel) some times i even put ink on the damn things and make copies (rember folks printmaking begain because it was reproductive it was only in the modern period that "original print" became important. Yes at times i want to be a Luditite or at least a Neo-ludite i still like indoor plumbking. I am not really bothered by the new processes but only when they are used to pull the wool ovedr the eyes of the uneducated by someone who really knows better. I personally like the prints were the artist does the whole show better than prints done by others for the artist even if they are better that what the artist could do by him self. An examp[le of this would be the professional print publishing houses (that might just be envey speaking as i personally think of my self as a formschnider wood cutter and would be happy if someone else did the printing. when no one is looking i am pushing the worms back in to the jar. lmao) john of the furry press ps my vote is do the best work you can do define your terms to the best of your ability if you want to print that defination hay that is what presses are for but don't forget to make some wood chips I think i have just found out the answer to my wifes ? about all thouse f%^&ing wood chips i seem to leave around the house. ------------------------------ From: "Alan Basist" Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:16:42 -0500 Subject: [Baren 14901] Re: ebay offer charset="iso-8859-1" Eli has a wonderful message that should be followed through.I vote yes. How about selling our own prints on EBay? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "bemason" To: Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 9:44 AM Subject: [Baren 14845] ebay offer > So far there are three yes and one no vote on this idea of Eli's. Before we > involve baren in any possible backlash from rash action, or in this case > very planned action we need to hear more votes. > Four people cannot speak for such a large group so if you have a feeling > about this, please let it be known. > > In case you missed the email, the idea is to put a page on ebay selling > informaiton on how to tell a real print and what a giclee really is, most of > the information will truly be in the discription of the item for sale, but > we will have to have a nice little info sheet done up in case anyone > actually buys one. We can start the price at $1 and as we have more than one > it can be marketed this way. We should be able to pay for xeroxing and > stamps by donation or sales. This would be a chance to spread correct > information but we need imput from the membership. > > Thanks, > Barbara > ------------------------------ From: "Robert" Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:12:24 -0700 Subject: [Baren 14902] Re: Greg's post charset="iso-8859-1" I get so frustrated with the subject of "prints vs. Giclee" that I want to scream. I had a call from a member of one of the framers associations the other day thanking me for putting this in the call to artists for our "All Nude! All the Time!" show in Sept.: Specifications All work must be original works done with archival materials. All 2D and 3D allowed. The artist must create all work. Work must be done within this century. NO GICLEE', NO REPRODUCTIONS! No minimum size. Maximum size 72X72 (2D), 36"X36"x 8'(3D) weight limited to 200lb All 2D work MUST be wired adequately for hanging and all glazing must be Plexiglas or other lightweight ... seems they don't like reproductions either. He said he sent a copy of the prospectus to the national Sec. and Pres. and they loved it. I always tell people "Never buy anything with two signatures!" Thanks Robert Canaga - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Dew" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 6:05 AM Subject: [Baren 14885] Greg's post > As Thomas Jefferson once said to John Adams; "Let us agree to disagree my > friend, without harming this friendship we have built ..." or something like > that. > I do not have a lot of "artist" friends, other than you folk, so maybe I am > viewing this debate from a different angle than some or all? > I have a friend who was just salivating to show me this beautiful print his > parents bought him for his birthday. They had spent over $5,000.00 to > purchase for him an original, hand signed print that they thought he would > love, and because he was friends with a "print artist" himself, would really > appreciate. > I bit my tongue sooo hard I probably drew blood, but I did not have the > heart to tell him that the print was not an original but a giclee. > When I sent out my postcards for the show, I had many of my non-artist > friends who have never been invited to a show opening. Surprise, surprise, > they thought the show was for one day only, the day of the opening. My > fault for not explaining on the postcard that the show was for the month of > June, but I "assumed" that they knew that. > Which brings me to my point. > The art world and those who frequent it, most likely know the difference > between a giclee and a hand pulled original print. But the general public, > our non-artist friends and a large portion of the uninformed and unknowing, > DO NOT KNOW the difference. Should we educate them? If not us, then who? > I like Maria's idea and plan to start using it as soon as possible. > I like Eli's idea and hope we can come up with an agreeable product to > "sell". > And I do agree with a few of Greg's points. I personally and corporately > support print shows with cash awards and purchase awards and encourage other > corporations to do the same. > But we cannot do "nothing", for by doing nothing, we allow the falsehoods to > continue and thrive. > > > dan dew > ------------------------------ From: michael schneider Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:10:01 +0200 Subject: [Baren 14903] Re: "Fake" vs. "real" prints Shireen Holman wrote: > > However, I don't agree that it's pointless to try to educate the public. I > think the issue here is not whether one should prefer original prints to > reproductions. Reproductions have their place, and one might want to own > one if one couldn't afford the original. I buy books of ukiyo-e prints > because I want to look at them - I couldn't buy an original, but I value my > books. The problem I see in this ebay case is one of fraud. It's not > uncommon to find people trying to sell reproductions as 'original limited > edition signed prints'. And, as Dan pointed out, many people really don't > know the difference. In my experience, people often think any prints are > reproductions - if they are multiples they can't be original artwork. This > does need some clarification. A while ago I posted something about giclee > reproductions of watercolour paintings that a gallery was selling as > limited edition signed prints. I wonder how many of you remember the story of the heliogravure. Developed in the late 1800«s, is was the first possibility for photomechanical reproduction that allowed high quality prints. Even for an expert it is very difficult to distinguish between intaglio and heliogravure as the printing process is identical. The danger of fraudulent use of this technique is much higher than with the giclee-print. After invention, the technique was widely appraised but soon sparked a long and sometimes bitter discussion among printmakers. (Some printmakers officially opposed but used the technique "in secret".) The technique really turned out as a way to print "money". Edition numbers grew higher and higher and the pictures turned into pure "Kitsch". After some years no artist would have wanted to be mentioned in connection with this technique. (Today the few printmakers left that are able to make a good heliogravure are the target of many artists who want to use the technique for its own character.) One of the results of the technical development in the beginning 20th century was the venice declaration on fine art prints, that became a reference definition for the "original print". ( A definition that is very much in the interest of the art market.) The situation today mirrors the situation printmakers faced, when the heliogravure started to confuse art buyers and artists. There is nothing to oppose, when information should be brought to the public about the possibilities of fraudulent use that comes with some printmaking methods, but I am very sure that the market in this case will very soon correct itself. ( Not that I believe in the self healing power of the free market, but I will make an exception in this case.) As I understand it, e-bay does not give any guarantee for the items offered for auction in any way, but it might be in their interest to offer some information on this matter. E-bay does cooperate with big art auctioneers and in this business image, trust and credibility is very important. ( If word of mouth tells that there are many "fakes" on ebay, it will harm their business.) Until now rules and definition have never had artists in mind, but the art market. When artists call for rules and definitions, a much bigger danger lies ahed than the giclee print, artists being used as a excuse for "regulation". If it would not be so late this would not have become so confused, but I hope you understood what I wanted to tel anyway. michael schneider Vienna Austria ------------------------------ End of Baren Digest V15 #1464 *****************************