For the record I was a screen printer…meaning I used to print my own work as you do…the hard way! But I am too old for all that now and the equipment remains sadly unused in my studio, and the squeegees are as hard as nails … and my ink-jet prints look like my screen prints but smaller and are designed and proofed just as carefully. More so than many so called ‘original’ screen-prints, my ink-jet prints do not exist in any other form.
I can’t see that hard manual labour is a necessary attribute in the production of a print…and if it is, one might remark that most well-known printmakers don’t do the hard work themselves!

Have you considered call them “everlasting syllabubs?”

The other 8 colours will be consistent print to print in the edition.

Although this is all done using screenprinting, after reading Tony’s and Cavin’s arguments on how there should be no distinctions between anything in the art world because we can use pretzel logic and definitions and personal opinions to make anything be anything, all to the greater good of selling art to innocents, I’ve decided these are no longer screenprints.

We are using waterbased acrylic inks. We are using nice thick Somerset Satin rag paper. So, seeing there is not much difference between the materials used in this and the materials used by watercolor painters, and because each background is different and original, and watercolor paintings sell for way more than our shitty screenprints, and the art buying public doesn’t care or doesn’t know any better, and we ran out of money to buy more beer….

I’ve decided we are going to call them watercolours.

Is that OK with everybody? We won’t say ‘paintings’ although we were painting with the squeegee.

We should make piles more money this way.

Obviously, anyone with a substantial economic interest in calling photographic reproductions “fine art prints” will argue the point till the cows come home, but that doesn’t alter the reality. And I’m not only referring here to painters who want to sell copies of their paintings, but the big-bucks large-format printer and ink interests.

The original intent for the word giclee was for the word giclee to mean fine art prints created on Iris printers. But the meaning of the name giclee changed into meaning an artist’s care for the process of using a computer and scanner and a printer and paper to produce art.

Its just that giclee’s can be intended to be reproductions and also as originals.

And i am guessing probably as in other printmaking methods there are poor giclee printers and excellent giclee printers.

Buyers have to learn to differentiate between poor giclee printers and excellent ones.

Just like good lithographers and bad lithographers, theree are good giclee printers and bad giclee printers.

WOW not if the artwork wasn’t intended to be the realized print the artist have in mind.

WOW i am excited that IFDPA could get this wrong. If the distinction as to whether a digital print is an “original print” is determined by whether the work was created by the artist to be realized as a print, then the artist may use the painting or drawing to realize the digital print as the original print. The painting or drawing wasn’t to be realized as the print to begin with.

If the painting or drawing was intended as the original print then of course a digital print of that work is a reproduction.

Its all intention guys! And IFPDA got it right at the top half but got it wrong on the bottom half when it claims method determines originality, when it clearly contradicts itself when it also says its determined by the intention of the artist.

How can digital print origination from a painting or drawing be not original when that was its intended form to begin with?