Fine Art Registry
Welcome! Member login, or new sign up.
Site Search   Advanced Search








Support Help Desk
FAR Art Gallery Search
Protect your art with FAR registration

What's New at FAR®

FAR Newsletter Sign-Up
Email
Art For Sale

Joan Altabe - Art and Architecture Critic FAR Columnist Article

Open Letter To Artists (From An Art Critic) - Part 6
by Joan Altabe - 7/25/2006

A crime against the art world is going unnoticed. There are no guns implicated. No slam-slam of bullets can be heard. But as far as I’m concerned, those involved are crooks.

The offense? Selling limited editions that aren’t. A limited edition print is hand-duplicated and the original plate is destroyed. A lot of what you see these days doesn’t meet that standard.

Like anything else, the fewer of something, the more it costs. Some artists, though, are selling “limited edition” prints that are not only photo-mechanically produced, but also are reproductions of work in another medium. And they are selling these reproductions - with the potential for mass production - at limited edition prices.

How is this possible? The print market goes virtually without oversight. As far back as the ‘80s, witnesses testifying at hearings in New York about the sale of fake Picasso prints said deceit in the print market is “rampant.”

The cause? Clearly, technology makes cheating easier, that and public ignorance of the difference between a handmade art print and a mechanically produced reprint. (More about the public in a moment).

Technology’s part in cheating can be attributed to the proliferation of cheaper inkjet printers. It used to be that Cibachrome prints, which are nothing more than good-grade photographic reproductions, were the fake prints of choice palmed off as original fine art prints. They’ve become less prevalent because they’re relatively easy to spot. They look too smooth, too much like a slick photograph.

The fake of the day is the Giclee (French for “to spray ink”), a scanned image printed on a high-resolution inkjet printer called Iris.

Granted, some experts defend Giclee. In 1995, Karen McCready of New York’s International Fine Print Dealers Association (formed in 1987 to protect collectors), has said that Giclee is a legitimate fine-art print as long as artists do the printing themselves. Which is the Print Council of America’s credo: printmaking requires artists participation.

But even if artists comply, Giclee is still illegitimate if copies are made from work in another medium. What you get, then, is a reproduction rather than an original fine art print.

Yet such reproductions are openly used as art prints. Giclee Print Net on the Internet offers a printmaking service with a promotion that reads, “Artists. Reproduce your works as limited signed editions on watercolor media or canvas.”

About the public’s part in this. Print dealers tell me that when people see original paintings they like for tens of thousands of dollars and then see what appears to be a very comparable facsimile by the same artist that sells for $1,500, they’re willing to buy it.

The numbers bear this out. Art prints account for 40 percent of art sales, compared with just 16 percent for paintings. But here’s where people’s ignorance or indifference can hurt them: The difference between a hand-made fine-art print and a mechanically produced reproduction can mean hundreds or thousands of dollars in resale value. There is no reliable secondary market for such reproductions. Thus, if art lovers buy prints and later wish to sell them, they can’t be sure of recouping the purchase price.

Michael Cowan, a senior art appraiser who determines print and painting values for the Arbitration Association of American, calls mechanically produced pictures nothing more than pictures of pictures.

If you’re into such picture-making, you’re spoiling the picture and ought to be taken away in a paddy wagon.   — Joan Altabe

Post comments | Print this article |

AddThis Social Bookmark Button     AddThis Feed Button
  Add Comments
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Enter alpha/numberic text from image on the left.
 
 NOTE: All comments are reviewed by FAR® before they are posted.





Comments:

Okay, exactly what is a digital photographer to do? Are you kidding? I do giclee of my photographs. I take my pictures and then upload to my computer then I use my computer to add words or whatever art I feel, then I print them via giclee technology. ARE YOU THEN SAYING MY PRINTS ARE FAKE? Technology has changed a lot of things and so it is. So do not find fault with the people who do work with digital prints. If I wish to market 1000 of my digital art/photos, it is a limited quantity so what is wrong with that? What the uppity art world (some people) have to recognize and accept is that digital art is here to stay and so get a new mental mindset. Tell me then, where do I print my art/photos that I took and create digitally? Walmart? Am I not allowed to use the new giclee technology if I wish? Since I do this horrible crime and print my pictures using giclee technology and print a limited quantity, is Joan Altabe going to take me away in a paddy wagon?

Adelle
July 28, 2006

You make some good points. I grant you that while printmaking is a 400-year-old tradition (originating in Japan), that was then and this is now. Still, to see where we're going, we need to know where we've been and acknowledge/respect the technique of the indisputable print: an impression pulled from an original metal or stone plate, woodblock or silkscreen solely by the artist and that the number of prints pulled are necessarily limited, usually to less than 100, after which the plate, block or screen is destroyed.

But you're right, advances in technology have increased ways to reproduce art in the thousands and still be sold as original fine art prints. And there are those in your corner, who say giclee prints are legit and I pointed one out - Karen McCready of the Intl Fine Print Dealers Assoc. So you're free to ignore my view here. As long as you execute the work yourself, she says, you're OK.

But folks like Henry Hine, former director of Graphicstudio/USF in Tampa, where modern masters such as Robert Rauschenberg and James Rosenquist make their fine-art prints, contends that true prints are not reproductions of anything. They are original images. And I'm with him.

I guess the thing to take away from this is that there's disagreement about giclee and to my way of thinking, as long as that's true, I'd avoid it.

Joan Altabe
July 29, 2006
Writer's response to Adelle

Dear Joan,
I am a tradigital artist and do all of my own printing, color correction, etc. I use many different mediums - traditional media (oil, acrylic, pen and pencil, photographs, etc.) and then various software media. The final work exists as digital information. In my mind it most closely resembles the concept of a photographic negative - and the prints I make from the digital information I call multiple originals. Thanks for your insight and thoughts.

Lisa Wray
August 1, 2006

Lisa, I don't mean to turn this dialogue into a three-act play, but...

Calling your work "multiple originals" is tantamount to tagging it duplicate one-of-a-kinds. It might be more logical to say multiples of originals.

A key point is getting lost in this discussion. Some art buyers may not mind if their purchase is a reproduction of an original, but they should if they buy art as an investment. When they're ready to sell, they won't be able to. There's no secondary market for reproductions.

Feeling like a Scrooge here, but there it is.

Joan Altabe
August 2, 2006
Writer's response to Lisa Wray

Hi Joan,
Of course your feelings are valid. I have wrestled with this issue myself. I understand where you are coming from. I think multiples of originals is an OK and correct way to describe the art / process. They are in fact, first generation duplicate one of a kinds - what makes the fine art multiple print unique is the FAR number. With the Fine Art Registry concept, I can make a numbered first generation multiple of an original. This is not a mass production process. There may only ever be 10 of something made and registered - or maybe even 1. Or there may be 200. What makes these pieces unique is the FAR number, my signature and date.

For commercial duplicate one of a kinds (I'm talking tradigitally created art only - as that's what I know and what I do) that are mass produced on commercial printing equipment - the differences would be in the substrates, inks and the fact that they wouldn't be signed, dated or numbered. They wouldn't be produced with archival materials, and they wouldn't printed by myself. The output from commercial printing machines is different as far as color reproduction as well. It's not nearly as beautiful.... and the color gamut and color spaces are different.

I want to thank you for thinking about this and taking the time to write to me about it. Does what I say make sense to you? I am not trying to deceive art buyers ...... so your feedback is important to me in this matter.

Best Regards,
Lisa
August 2, 2006

Yes, numbering, limiting an edition is the way to go with prints, along with signing, dating and doing it all yourself. I would only add that if the edition is truly limited, the "plate," or negative in your case, should be discarded.

That you "wrestle with this issue" points to your virtue in the matter. Good luck with your work, Lisa.

Joan
August 2, 2006
Writer's response to Lisa

Joan,
You made reference in your 7/25 article to art sales: Art prints account for 40 percent of art sales, compared with just 16 percent for paintings. Can you give me the breakout on the rest of the 100%? I have been researching the art market for a paper I’m authoring and was wondering if you have any other insights on the art market. I’m specifically interested in reproductions as a portion of the market, how their value is set, who purchases them, what impact China has on the reproduction market, what % of the Giclee market is photography reproduction as opposed to oil reproduction, etc. If it has to do with the reproduction market, I’m interested. I would sincerely appreciate any information you may be able to provide (including references to more info).

Thank you in advance!
DJ
August 5, 2006

Justin, your questions are the stuff of a PhD thesis. Very worthwhile study. I'd start with the International Fine Print Dealers Association. Their website is chock full of info and their links to other sites should also help.

Joan
August 25, 2006
Writer's response to DJ





The views and opinions of individual authors/contributors expressed on the FAR web site do not necessarily state or reflect those views and/or opinions of Fine Art Registry or its agents or subsidiaries.

© 2006 Global Fine Art Registry, LLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without express permission.

Fine Art Registry®, FAR® and the Fine Art Registry Logo are registered trademarks of Global Fine Art Registry, LLC. Helping Bring Order to the World of Art™ is a trademark of Global Fine Art Registry, LLC.

Copyright © 2003-2008 Global Fine Art Registry, LLC. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without express permission.