World Printmakers’ Print Workshop Central

When was the last time we had the satisfaction of discovering an authentic new voice? This is one of them. And it comes accompanied by a withering eye and a brilliant hand. Life’s Too Short for Nuance, Louis Netter’s new book of satirical drawings, surprises and delights us with a combination of bluntly honest comment and ruggedly refined acid-etched illustrations. I use the term “acid etched” advisedly, as Netter’s images are not only figuratively corrosive, they’re actually acid etchings.

After decades of seeing innocent Americans being cynically manipulated, dumbed down, and distracted by politicians, preachers, the military-industrial complex and the mass media on behalf of the same old vested interests, it’s refreshing to come across a young man with a clean, uncomplicated vision, the talent to express it and, most importantly, the courage to publish it. Read the rest of this entry »

We received an emailed invitation this morning from the Curwen Studio to visit their stand at the Cambridgeshire Art Fair in June, and I was prompted to visit their website. After spending a quarter of an hour browsing around the site I couldn’t figure out what these people make. Their terminology is so garbled (intentionally so, it seems) that it’s difficult to discern exactly what they’re up to. Do they make hand-pulled fine-art prints? Do they make reproductions? Do they make both? Could anybody clear this up for me?

Read the rest of this entry »

Here at Last

Here, at last, are the results of Print Workshop Central‘s Studio Survey I. In all, 23 studios replied to the questionnaire, a mediocre turnout at best. Print studios are busy, it seems. After asking respondents to identify themselves, we invited them to tell us about the services their studios provided. No surprises here. The most generalized services are workshops/classes. And most studios offer a variety of other print-related services.  The “other” comment at the end is “press repair.” Nice service. Here’s the breakdown.

Read the rest of this entry »

I had forgotten about this wonderful little animation of printmaking techniques published by the MoMA a few years ago, but Ferenc Keresi reminded me of it this morning when I followed a link from his email announcing next spring’s ex libris exhibition in Debrecen (Hungary). Here are Ferenc’s ex libris site and his blog: www.exlibris.lap.hu and www.keresi.blog.hu. Some of you may want to participate in this Hungarian exhibit.

P.S. And if you’re in NY, don’t miss the smashing Ensor show, on at the MoMA until September 21, 2009.

An Invitation from the International Print Biennial of Seoul, Korea

This invitation to participate in a print-definition survey arrived this morning by email. I find it relevant to our own discussion, and interesting that it should come from Korea. So I’m posting it here, both the introductory email and the questionnaire, should anyone like to fill it out and send it back to them. Read the rest of this entry »

You might like to have a look at expert  Skip Natzmer’s comments on this Michigan law dealing with art prints.  It includes this paragraph:

This clause forces the seller of ‘‘limited edition’’ ‘‘giclee’’ prints, now the most common form of reproduction, to disclose that they are not original prints. ‘‘Giclee’’ is simply a French word for ‘‘ink spray,’’ or another term for the ink jet printer. The fraud and misrepresentation in marketing these reproductions is surpassing the earlier abuses described above. To make a giclee print one merely scans the existing artwork, or a photo of it, into a computer and then prints it. Next, it is signed and numbered on the margin. Giclees are also being printed on canvas to resemble paintings. The creative input of the artist is limited to perhaps altering some colors, then pushing the print button. Discussing these prints one author states: ‘‘But these are not ‘prints’ in the way anyone in the professional art community would define them. These are reproductions—nothing more than fancy photocopies.’’ ‘‘The signed-reproduction market is a ruse,’’ says Toronto art dealer Donald Robinson, ‘‘and the problem is convincing the uninformed art buyer that these are not original prints.’’¹⁷ At prices often exceeding $1,000 per print, it is an expensive ruse.

This is a Mutual Help Article, Not an Advertisement

Have you ever exhibited in a gallery? Have you ever wished there were other ways to market your artwork? If the answer is, “Well, frankly, yes…” please read on.

We think a lot of visual artists would like to discover alternate ways to market their work without going the gallery route. But just what are the alternatives? We have some ideas, but we’re admittedly not experts on the subject. So we’ve created a new site called–you guessed it–Cut the Gallery Out of the Picture, located at http://cutthegalleryoutofthepicture.com.

Read the rest of this entry »

More than one of the participants in the No Giclee debate have pointed out the necessity to define the terms we are using in the interest of clarifying the issues.  This was brought to our attention again yesterday in an excellent post by fine-art photographer, Eugene Bradford (scroll to the bottom of this page to see his comments.) So we’re opening up this post to create a space where people can propose their own definitions of the words we’re throwing around so freely in the debate, with no real consensus yet as to what we’re actually talking about. Then we can think about them together and try to reach an agreement on what each one means. This should make our debate clearer and more meaningful, and perhaps even lead to some conclusions on which we can take action.

So, if you would like to contribute your own definitions of terms like “fine-art print,” “hand pulled,” “giclee,” “digital print,” and any others you might find relevant, please feel free to do so in the “Comment” box. (Follow the “leave a comment” link located beneath the headline of this post.)

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:

1. “I’m all for it. I would use the symbol and so would my printmaker friends.” This is the majority opinion.
2. “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.
3. “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.
4. “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!

Read the rest of this entry »