How to sign canvas giclees?
Tony Winston
What about paint? Would water-mixable oil paint, fluid acrylic or heavy
body acrylic paint – applied with an artist's paintbrush – be safe?
The giclees' inks that are being used are pigmented. The canvas is
water-resistant and has a glossy coating on the whole surface. The
canvas will be varnished after the prints have beens signed.
I tried brush pens, but light colors of the brush pens don't show up on
dark areas of teh canvas giclees.
I wonder, too, what other artists and photographers use that's safe.
This question must come up a lot among artists and photographers, yet
when I searched the Internet with a search motor, I couldn't find anything.
Tony
Awe Gust
not-m...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com says...
>
>What medium should an artist use to safely sign canvas giclees?
Why wouldn't you simply print the signature along
with the rest of the print - using the same
inks? Adding the signature to the prints later
is NOT going to add legitimacy! These are NOT
in the same league as fine art print editions.
Tony Winston
>
> In article <44E097B8...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com>,
> not-m...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com says...
> >
> >What medium should an artist use to safely sign canvas giclees?
>
> Why wouldn't you simply print the signature along
> with the rest of the print - using the same
> inks?
Each print will have a different number on it, and customers expect the
prints to be hand-signed.
> Adding the signature to the prints later
> is NOT going to add legitimacy!
Nonsense.
> These are NOT
> in the same league as fine art print editions.
More nonsense. You don't have a clue of what you're writing about. (I
feel a 'gust' of hot air.)
They ARE fine art print editions. They will have a lightfastness rating
of over 100 years – far longer than offset litho fine art print editions
– and far longer than you or I will be around.
Tony
Tony Winston
>
> Awe Gust wrote:
> >
> > In article <44E097B8...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com>,
> > not-m...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com says...
> > >
> > >What medium should an artist use to safely sign canvas giclees?
> >
> > Why wouldn't you simply print the signature along
> > with the rest of the print - using the same
> > inks?
>
> Each print will have a different number on it, and customers expect the
> prints to be hand-signed.
>
> > Adding the signature to the prints later
> > is NOT going to add legitimacy!
>
> Nonsense.
>
> > These are NOT
> > in the same league as fine art print editions.
>
> More nonsense. You don't have a clue of what you're writing about. (I
> feel a 'gust' of hot air.)
And I don't feel awe. (What will you call yourself next month: Sep Tem Burr?)
> They ARE fine art print editions. They will have a lightfastness rating
> of over 100 years – far longer than offset litho fine art print editions
> – and far longer than you or I will be around.
And 100 years is longer than many watercolour paintings will last.
> Tony
Awe Gust
says...
>Awe Gust is correct.
Thanks Dan. I wasn't going to bother replying
to this individual since they already believe
they know it all.
Tony Winston
>
> In article <44E097B8...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com>,
> not-m...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com says...
> >
> >What medium should an artist use to safely sign canvas giclees?
>
> is NOT going to add legitimacy!
Why don't you tell that to the art gallery owners and their customers,
who reject my prints if they're missing the signatures and numbers?
Your stupid statement is like saying that an author signing his book
doesn't add legitimacy to the book, or a musician signing his c.d.
doesn't add legitimacy to the c.d. Tell that to the book and c.d.
collectors and fans who stand in line -- sometimes for hours -- waiting
for the creators' signatures.
Obviously you're an armchair critic and not a professional and you don't
think like a true art connoisseur and fan.
Tony
Tony Winston
No, he's not.
> Giclees (a form of ink jet print) are photomechanical
> reproductions - an existing work is photographed and then printed. They are
> posters.
Not necessarily. My dictionary defines a poster as a "large printed
notice or advertisement, often illustrated, put up in some public
place." My giclees are not all large, they're not advertisements, and
many of them are displayed in private establishments.
> Often they are 'numbered and signed', which is solely to make them
> seem more valuable to the average person, who can't be expected to know
> differently.
There are many knowledgeable art, literature, music, movie, etcetera,
fans, who value the signatures of the creators on the art, books, c.d.s,
movie DVD jackets, etcetera.
> Genuine prints include etchings, lithographs, woodcuts, and other forms
> that are printed from a plate, block, or other medium. There is no original
> work and no photography.
Bullshit. That's like saying that for a c.d. to be legitmate art, the
musician has to go the the c.d. factory and make each c.d. himself, or
the author has to go to the book pubisher and print and bind each book
for the book to be legitimate, or that a move actor has to make all of
his costumes by hand or make the film or DVD in the factory for his
acting to be considered legitimate.
An art print doesn't have to be made by the hand of the artist to be
legitimate art.
You're confusing the mechanical process with the art.
Limited edition art prints, c.d.s, books, etetera, are just as
legitimate art forms as any other, and more special when they're in
limited quantities.
> Unscrupulous galleries have been selling posters as prints for years.
>
> It's not illegal, just unethical.
There are many honest galery staff who will not deceive their customers.
You have a cynical attidtude; you imply that every galleriy worker
selling limited edtion art prints is a crook. I've even heard some
gallery staff explain to their customers in front of me that certain
prints are reproduced on mechanical presses, and many descriptions that
accompany art prints or that are displayed in galleries explain the
mechanical process. (I've written such a giclee description myself, and
it's displayed in all my catlogs and even hanging on gallery walls and
mounted on foamcore and displayed prominently on countertops in art
galleries, where they've been read by tens of thousands of art gallery
customers. There's nothing unethical or unscrupulous in that.
You're just cynics.
Tony
Tony Winston
I didn't write anything to imply that I know everything. If knew it all
, I wouldn't have asked my question that sparked this debate.
I do know a lot, though, having been a full-time, professional fine
artist for several years.
Tony
Tony Winston
> > who reject my prints if they're missing the signatures and numbers?
>
> believe that adding a signature and edition number adds to the value of the
> poster. In fact, they have no real worth, signed or unsigned.
By the same logic, then, one could say that all art has no value. Beauty
is in the eye of the beholder, so if people consider the signatures and
limited numbers to be of real worth and are willing to pay their money
to get those signatures and numbers on the prints and they're informed
that there are mechanical processes involved in reproducing the images,
then there's nothing amiss.
To some people, a Jaguar or Rolls-Royce has no real value. That doesn't
subtract from the fact that those cars are machines of great beauty and
value to many other people.
> >
> > Your stupid statement is like saying that an author signing his book
> > doesn't add legitimacy to the book, or a musician signing his c.d.
> > doesn't add legitimacy to the c.d. Tell that to the book and c.d.
> > collectors and fans who stand in line -- sometimes for hours -- waiting
> > for the creators' signatures.
> >
> > Obviously you're an armchair critic and not a professional and you don't
> > think like a true art connoisseur and fan.
>
> Actually I am a professional with many years' experience. But you have a
> lot of company -- artists and galleries have been collaborating for a long
> time in this scam. I am willing to believe, however, that you don't realize
> that it is a scam and are acting in good faith.
There are many honest galery staff who will not deceive their customers.
You have a cynical attitude; you imply that every gallery worker
selling limited edtion art prints is a crook. I've even heard some
gallery staff explain to their customers in front of me that certain
prints are reproduced on mechanical presses, and many descriptions that
accompany art prints or that are displayed in galleries explain the
mechanical process. (I've written a full-page giclee description myself, and
it's displayed in all my catlogs and even hanging on gallery walls and
mounted on foamcore and displayed prominently on countertops in art
galleries, where they've been read by tens of thousands of art gallery
customers. There's nothing unethical or unscrupulous in that.
> You can educate yourself: The proof of the value of any work lies in the
> auction houses. No auction house will take a giclee or other posters,
> signed or not, since they have no worth.
That's probably because they specialize in original art.
Call them and ask. Also call a
> couple of professional appraisers (like Skinner in Boston) who only do
> appraisals and don't sell anything. There are very specific definitions of
> a print, and you can look them up.
There are lots of other professional appraisers who value limited
giclees highly. The art galleries that specialize in secondary market
prints are examples of such appraisers, and they buy and sell giclees
every day.
Tony
Tony Winston
>
> You're right, Jack. He's totally confident and totally ignorant. But he's
> got an income to protect.
It's not just an income.
It's my wonderful creative passion, which I'm sharing with tens of
thousands of my fans (and perhaps millions before I'm through). I'm
enriching the lives of hundreds more people every day.
My art touches people so deeply that one man wrote to me, "I just want
to offer you my thanks for introducing me to the wonderful world of
art!" and wrote how he plans to become a lifelong collector of my art
prints and perhaps paintings.
My art touches people so deeply that one woman told me it was more
exciting to meet me than meeting a rock star. Another woman wept she was
so moved emotionally just looking at the images on my Web site. Another
young woman was so excited about one of my paintings that she offered to
have sex with me.
Most of my fans don't care that I didn't make most of my prints by hand,
because the beauty what's important -- not the medium by which the
beauty is conveyed.
What a narrow-minded outlook you have! The world would be deprived of
most of its treasures of creative endeavours if musicians' c.d.s were
limited to being hand-made by the musicians. If that were the case, most
people who know the great music of thw world would not even have heard
about those musicians. The same goes for literature, photography and
every other creative, artistic genre.
How much poorer would the world be, if every book still had to be
written by hand, instead of having the mechanical printing presses to
bring the great literature to humanity?
Art is about ideas and emotions. You're still confused between the ideas
and emotions that make up art, as opposed to the mechanical processes
that bring those ideas to fruition for the benefit of millions of people.
Tony
Tony Winston
Another example is acting. by extrapolation, you must contend that the
work of movie actors is of no real value, because their work has been
mechanically reproduced in the form of DVDs, as opposed to being
performed live in front of a live audience. Your argument is completely
irrational and myopic!
Tony
Tony Winston
>
> Actually I am a professional with many years' experience.
It doesn't show.
> But you have a
> lot of company -- artists and galleries have been collaborating for a long
> time in this scam. I am willing to believe, however, that you don't realize
> that it is a scam and are acting in good faith.
You don't realize that you're narrow-minded and stupid. I'm not
scamming anyone. The prints that my customers are getting exactly what
I'm openly describing the prints to be in my advertising, and no one's
complaining.
> You can educate yourself:
I am educated. Thanks, anyway.
The proof of the value of any work lies in the
> auction houses.
Auction houses are only one means of appraisal.
> No auction house will take a giclee or other posters,
> signed or not, since they have no worth. Call them and ask. Also call a
> couple of professional appraisers (like Skinner in Boston) who only do
> appraisals and don't sell anything.
There are also art galleries that specialize in posters. That doesn't
mean that print forms other than posters have no value. Your logic is
very flawed.
Tony
Tony Winston
>
> You're right, Jack. He's totally confident and totally ignorant. But he's
> got an income to protect.
Ignorant? I'm one of the leading artists in my jurisdiction, the envy of
my peers and an inspiration to thousands. Increasingly, artists consult
me for advice and I know more about art than some of the instructors of
courses I've taken, so I don't take courses anymore. I've even had art
gallery owners threaten me if I refused to consign my paintings to their
galleries -- that's how much demand there is for my art. If you think an
artist can achieve that level of success by being ingorant, then YOU"RE ignorant.
The broadly accepted, small-minded, intolerant stipulation that art has
to be hand-made bugs me, too, because so many artists acribe to that
crock of crap and therefore it's one of the main reasons why most
artists are poor and why artists are made a laughingstock with
tarnishing labels like "starving artist". I don't think it's a
coincidence that fine artists have the lowest incomes of all creative types.
Tony
Awe Gust
not-m...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com says...
>Ignorant? I'm one of the leading artists in my jurisdiction
Not only are you a blowhard, you're delusional.
And not worth the time to type another reply to
your diatribes.
Mani Deli
>Tony Winston <not-m...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> You're just cynics.
>
>
>You're right, Jack. He's totally confident and totally ignorant. But he's
>got an income to protect.
>
>We're now up to a trio, I guess: Mani, Bill, and Tony. Like Larry, Moe, and
>Curly.
>
You'll notice that failure Dan Fox can't answer the points. About all
he can do is personal attack. He's our conference blowhard idiot.
Mani Deli
>Actually I am a professional with many years' experience. But you have a
>lot of company -- artists and galleries have been collaborating for a long
>time in this scam. I am willing to believe, however, that you don't realize
>that it is a scam and are acting in good faith.
Deep down Fox is an antiquated conservative. Its not a scam. The
methods of art change. At one time acrylic painting was a scam.
>You can educate yourself:
and Fox is also a patronizing ass. Anyone who disagrees with him is in
his mind ignorant of art history etc.
>The proof of the value of any work lies in the
>auction houses.
The proof of monetary value is what someone is willing to pay.
> No auction house will take a giclee or other posters,
Not true lots of 19th and 20th Century posters sell at auction. Ever
hear of Lautrec or Mucha, Fox?
>signed or not, since they have no worth. Call them and ask. Also call a
>couple of professional appraisers (like Skinner in Boston) who only do
>appraisals and don't sell anything. There are very specific definitions of
>a print, and you can look them up.
So what constitutes a print of value according to Fox is written in
stone. Bet Fox's signed numbered prints are as incompetent as his
furniture store artwork.
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
"Tony Winston" <not-m...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com> wrote in
message news:44E097B8...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com...
> What medium should an artist use to safely sign canvas giclees?
>
> What about paint? Would water-mixable oil paint, fluid acrylic or heavy
Tony Winston
Yes, I'm surprised at the lame comeback. And all that 'Awe Gust' could
come up with is to claim that I'm delusional.
A pitiful response.
Tony
Tony Winston
>
> In article <44E242ED...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com>,
> not-m...@email-address-to-deter-junk-mail.com says...
>
> >Ignorant? I'm one of the leading artists in my jurisdiction
>
> Not only are you a blowhard, you're delusional.
Maybe the money in my bank account (which I got from my fine art income)
is also delusional. Maybe my computer and Internet connection (which I
also paid for with my fine art income) is also delusional. Maybe I'm
only deluded into thinking that I'm writing this message. ;-)
> And not worth the time to type another reply to
> your diatribes.
Why not? Because you can't think of any good counter arguments, that's
why. You're fucking idiot.
Tony
Tony Winston
>
> Actually I am a professional with many years' experience.
People like you give the profession a bad name, by teaching artists to
think small and limit their opportunities.
You're an embarrassment to the profession.
> But you have a
> lot of company -- artists and galleries have been collaborating for a long
> time in this scam.
People like you have helped artists to acquire the embarrassing moniker
"starving artist" because of your twisted negativity.
Tony
radi...@aol.com
Tony Winston wrote:
>
> It's not just an income.
>
> It's my wonderful creative passion, which I'm sharing with tens of
> thousands of my fans (and perhaps millions before I'm through). I'm
> enriching the lives of hundreds more people every day.
>
> My art touches people so deeply that one man wrote to me, "I just want
> to offer you my thanks for introducing me to the wonderful world of
> art!" and wrote how he plans to become a lifelong collector of my art
> prints and perhaps paintings.
Did he Butt-Fuck you then?
>
> My art touches people so deeply that one woman told me it was more
> exciting to meet me than meeting a rock star. Another woman wept she was
> so moved emotionally just looking at the images on my Web site. Another
> young woman was so excited about one of my paintings that she offered to
> have sex with me.
>
Dude, are they gonna make a shrine for your holiness?
> Most of my fans don't care that I didn't make most of my prints by hand,
> because the beauty what's important -- not the medium by which the
> beauty is conveyed.
>
> What a narrow-minded outlook you have! The world would be deprived of
> most of its treasures of creative endeavours if musicians' c.d.s were
> limited to being hand-made by the musicians. If that were the case, most
> people who know the great music of thw world would not even have heard
> about those musicians. The same goes for literature, photography and
> every other creative, artistic genre.
>
> How much poorer would the world be, if every book still had to be
> written by hand, instead of having the mechanical printing presses to
> bring the great literature to humanity?
>
> Art is about ideas and emotions. You're still confused between the ideas
> and emotions that make up art, as opposed to the mechanical processes
> that bring those ideas to fruition for the benefit of millions of people.
>
For the most part, i agree with you.
But if yer gonna brag here, yer gonna get shot
down pretty quick.
Erik A. Mattila
Heh heh...a real artist has patrons. This guy has fans. Hmmm, that
says it all.
Awe Gust
e...@nospamimpix.com says...
>This guy has fans. Hmmm, that
>says it all.
Sally Rand reincarnated, perhaps?
radi...@aol.com
Tony Boy,
So where is a link to samples of your incredible
artwork?
SLick
CB
"Dan Fox" <danfoxa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20060820161250.418$y...@newsreader.com...
> don't quite have the authentic kook sound, and nobody can possibly be that
> dumb.
>
Don't bet on it Dan. When I was checking out what our fav. "Painter of
Light" was up to, I went to ebay (which has turned into a great dumping
ground for his work). What was interesting that there were almost as many
cheap prints of his listed under "Paintings" as there were "Prints".
> Who is Sally Rand?
http://www.geocities.com/~jimlowe/sally/sallydex.html
(BTW Jack, that was very funny quip, but I missed it as well...)
Cheers;
Chris
jbube...@comcast.net
spin, http://www.seventhhourblues.com Vincent could have used a simple
optical device to make his self portraits.
Long time no hear!
Joe
Awe Gust
caldwell...@gmail.com says...
>(BTW Jack, that was very funny quip, but I missed it as well...)
Just one more manifestation of my ancientness and
your youthfulness! I wonder if Sally was ever the
subject of a masterful portrait?
Quoting from the article you referenced, this is what
I recall about her "performances."
"As Sally manipulated two pink seven-foot ostrich fans
to conceal and reveal much, but not all, only the
eagle-eyed could successfully claim to have seen anything."
To all appearances, she appeared to be dancing totally
nude, but kept those two fans constantly in motion to
constantly conceal her *ass*sets - pardon the pun.