Frontal Assault, Skirt the Issue or Vice Versa?
An Attempt to Summarize the Opinions Voiced in the No-Giclee Debate
After a month’s debate on the subject of what authentic printmakers might do to combat disloyal competition from giclee reproduction operations which call their copies “fine-art prints,” the discussion has centered around the possibility of implementing Andy MacDougall’s idea to create a No Giclee symbol. This symbol or logo would distinguish between true fine-art prints and giclee reproductions. The opinions expressed on the subject seem to me to break down roughly into four categories:
- “I’m all for it. I would use the symbol and so would my printmaker friends.” This is the majority opinion.
- “I’m against it. Giclee prints are just as ‘fine art’ as etchings or screen prints.” This opinion is expressed only by people who are in the business of selling reproductions.
- “I think something should be done, but from the positive side, i.e. a symbol which denotes original hand-pulled prints.” This suggestion arose late in the discussion but has quite a few advocates.
- “We need to work a multi-pronged approach to make it clear that these reproductions are NOT originals.” This is the suggestion of digital artist, Diana Nicholette Jeon.
I was struck by Diana’s concept of a “multi-pronged approach.” She’s right, why limit ourselves to one symbol, and a negative one at that? If we consider it advisable, we can do both a hand-pulled-original-print chop and a No Giclee symbol for use as window sticker, bumper sticker, Internet logo, etc. And if we come up with more creative ideas which might be effective, we can implement those, too.
Now what we need are the designs for both concepts. It would be good to have 15 or 20 from which to choose!
Mike, I have added to this debate before, and am amused that it continues after 8 months or more. I have just been trying to write an introduction to ‘my’ website that I never get round to finishing, and to explain my current prints I wrote the following:
My prints are original prints in the sense that they do not exist in any other form. They are not reproductions of, for example, a water-colour.
Computer generated reproductions are called Giclee prints, and they are also printed with electronic printers. It has been confusing for buyers of prints, because it can be very difficult to see that a reproduced water-colour, a drawing, or even a print, etc is not actually the original. Sometimes these reproductions are so good that it makes the argument that they are not original prints seem pretty academic. What is not of no consequence are the prices unfairly charged to those who think they are buying, often signed and numbered, originals! It has also infuriated many artist-printmakers who feel they are faced with unfair competition. Other artists, many well known, have been using mixed processes for many years now, and it has become impossible to lay down rules except for one: a print cannot be called original if it exists in any other form. If there is another ‘original’ from which it is mechanically copied, it is a reproduction!
I also wrote:-
These days I wouldn’t have the strength for the physical work involved in screen printing so it is quite pleasant to find an alternative method. Contrary to common belief, ORIGINAL ink-jet prints using the computer require as much exploratory work and proofing before arriving at a final print as do any other original print. It is not an easy option! The computer does no thinking, no designing, no drawing, but it is a willing slave.
In my opinion, there would be a lot of famous artists who would fall by the wayside if you tried to apply a ‘hand-printed’ criterian to all prints considered ‘original’. What about transfers to lithographic plates from a drawing on paper as was being demonstrated by the Curwen at the Tate?!!! What about photo selected colours from a crayon drawing then printed as a screen print?
Maybe the sign should simply be Buyer Beware!
All the best, Julia
Julia Matcham
June 12, 2009 at 4:54 pm