Question on an ART Opportunity
aileron37
site here
www.flyinghorseart.igi-art.com as it was free. She has done painting in
the past and this new company was created to promote new artist. If you
join with a site, which is free, the ART may be bought for less money.
Though she is not of this caliper yet, they have many great looking
reproductions using "geclay" a few she is interested in. My question
is, does this type of painting hold it`s value? Would it make a good
investment? If not, is it worth the money they want? We are looking at
$400 worth of art. I understand that geclay (spelling) is not a "cheap"
way of doing reproductions. Any Thoughts? Thank you
rick
chris
A giclee print is basically just a fancy inkjet print ("giclee" is just
French for "squirted"). They can be produced en masse, and cheaply.
Even if they are signed and numbered by the artist and done with top
quality materials, their long term value is dubious, at least until the
artist croaks & can't sign & number any more of them. The fact that the
artist is doing giclees to start with - sort of a McDonald's approach
to reproducing work - should be a red flag in itself.
OTOH, if you get 400$ worth of pleasure from the print itself, then by
all means buy it. But only on that basis, not as a long term
investment. Short term, who knows. That's a highly speculative market
working on the greater fool theory.
Chris
Erik A. Mattila
> The short answer is, no. Giclees aren't really prints at all, just
> posters. signed and numbered is meaningless. There is no value to hold.
How can you make that claim, Biljo? There are hundreds, if not
thousands, of artists and photographers earning money with limited
edition ink-jet prints. Why would an ink-jet print, signed and numbered
by the artist, have any less intrinsic value than a 1st edition book,
signed by its author?
Now it's entirely different if your position is that YOU don't value
ink-jets, of course. It's just that your value isn't extensible into
the reality of the art market - which is provable by the fact that
collectors can in fact purchase ink-jets in a gallery, art museum etc.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where you would be correct, though.
What would it take? For one thing, it would take an organized effort by
interested parties to both establish and enforce a specific criteria as
to what constitutes a "fine art print." It would be an exclusionary
process involving actually marginalizing works of arts made by artists
that didn't fit the criteria. Then what's next? Criminal prosecution
for artists who market their ink-jets as "prints."
What rules would you evoke? What authority? Would you be happy to see
most of Holbien, Cranach or Ruben's work removed from the category "art"
because they were produced 10 - 20 - 30 off by painting factories?
Would you exclude a huge amount of early print making products because
the plates were carved by carpenters and printed by apprentices in print
making factories or publishing houses?
How about the sublime Greek vase, 99% of which were manufactured in art
factories?
But don't get me wrong. I love hand-crafted prints made according to
the 19th century technology from which they sprang. Nothing compares to
a stone lithograph IMO. Or a drypoint etching, for that matter. But
ink jet technology is upon us, and several artists are out to advantage
it to the best of their ability. But collectively, all printing
technologies are about the same thing - getting marks on a substrate
like paper. People interested in buying stone lithos for whatever
reason aren't likely to have much interest in ink jet prints. But
people interested in spending 300 bucks for a limited edition print of
100 instead of 1200 bucks for a dry point edition of 8 will look at ink
jets.
aileron37
see what it`s like. They have a company meeting at the next town over,
so we may go to it just because the opportunity looks interesting. By
creating our own site and buying the art at wholesale we got reward
cards in return which earn cash. The art is reproduced on canvas. Don`t
know if that matters. The whole idea is pre-mote unknown artist, so
that's a good thing right? We should have it in a few days so I guess
we will see. Perhaps I can post a picture.
rick
Gune E. Byrd
>People interested in buying stone lithos for whatever
>reason aren't likely to have much interest in ink jet prints.
I find it ironic that today an "artist" can create
something "original," and then produce countless
printed artifacts. And do it all with the computer
without any need for traditional artistic knowledge
or effort. And other people will purchase same...
The jokes on us - and them!
Erik A. Mattila
easel art, Gune E. Byrd (I like you handle), including ink jets. As it
turns out, making an ink jet print isn't particulary easy - it may even
be thought of as "challenging" in many instances.
Oil paints are "easy" compared to, say, egg tempera. I wonder if the
egg artists felt cheated when oil was introduced?
In printmaking, the edition is the "original" - not the single print.
This was true in 16th c. Nuremburg as it is today.
If you want a good read try Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the
Age of Mechanical Reproduction." You can find it on-line here:
http://bid.berkeley.edu/bidclass/readings/benjamin.html
Benjamin was writing about the impact of mass media on our conception of
the work of art, basically. It's very interesting and thought provoking.
But just as sort of a hobby, I think it is interesting to attempt to
trace our attitudes about the work of art, to discover where they come
from, and to discover its history and evolution over time. Furthermore,
I think it's an important hobby for an artist. Certainly a critical
hobby for an artist who is dedicated to the concept of the uniqueness
and originality of the work of art. "Critical" because one must
understand what "original" is in order to achieve originality.
Look at "easel painting", for example. When one considers the entire
history of art, from the first painted gourd from Peru or the first
bison pntg in France, to the present, easel painting occupies a very
tiny niche: it's grandparents were probably Christian icon painting but
it didn't reach maturity until the 15th century. And what were the
conditions that prevailed in culture to encourage easel painting, and
what were the particular attributes of easel painting that met these
conditions? A radical shift in society, the appearance of private
wealth, and the growing social value of "collecting" all come to mind,
and the portability of easel art became important to fill this social
need.
And I believe that if you took the time to survey your friends and
neighbors about what they think of when someone says "art" or "artist"
is "easel painting" - remarkable, in a way, since easel painting
occupies such a tiny niche in the total production of works of art over
time. But that's the way it is, the mechanizations of the great
discourse of art in our society has made it so. Although benign, I
think, it is nevertheless a bias, and it is a grand example of how
social discourse affects our thinking.
Then we move to printmaking, the subject of this discussion.
Printmaking by definition betrays the concept of the uniqueness of the
work of art, and certainly adjusts the concept of "originality" in a
radical way. Yet it prevailed, developed and evolved in what we have
today. Printmaking has always been responsive to new technologies. For
example, the word "stereotype" is an old printmaking term. A French
printer invented a way to cast in metal a whole page of type instead of
having to reset the individual letters each time the old letters wore
out. This meant more pages could be printed with less time and labor,
which in turn reduced the price of printing and made the printed work
more available to a greater number of people. (I'm sure you see the
trend here to what we now call mass media). The stereotype then had a
tremendous impact on illustration in printing, because a wood cut block
wears quickly and the most skillful carpenter could not carve a new one
that reproduced the first one perfectly. So technological leaps took
place in platemaking, the metalurgy of engraving and etching plates was
enhanced, and eventually lithography was invented, which could keep up
with innovations in type technology. But what's to the point here is
the trajectory of printing, and that was to produce more for less.
But ink-jet technology is not inside of that trajectory, because it does
not, and never has, met the demands of mass media. It is very limited.
So it developed as a lab tool, for making proofs that producers could
look at and see what the mass produced objects will look like. Although
limited (in terms of time and numbers) it has some virtues that are
unique to itself. It lays on the ink in a very beautiful way, and I
don't know if other technologies could do it the same way. But more to
the point, it conformed to the needs of the developing personal computer
technology, which we are all here benefiting from by virtue of
exchanging thought and views on this forum.
What you wrote above implies that the marriage of ink jet printing and
personal computers provide users with instand access to create something
that looks like "fine art" but is somehow counterfeit. Or that is is
somehow cheating. I don't agree at all. The challenges of producing an
excellent image are no less than studio printmaking or even easel
painting, for that matter. Of course it is a different set of
challenges, but is simply isn't "easy" by any stretch of the
imagination. The overpowering plus, imo, is that it gives the artist a
means to pay his or her bills - a simple arithmitic thing: 25 prints at
25 bucks equals 725 bucks - minus the 100 bucks you've spent on paper
and ink for the edition. A good artist who knows what she/he is doing
can do this. A bad artist will just be frustrated and maybe think about
going to art school to hone the old skills.
Regards, Erik
Gune E. Byrd
>What you wrote above implies that the marriage of ink jet printing and
>personal computers provide users with instand access to create something
>that looks like "fine art" but is somehow counterfeit. Or that is is
>somehow cheating. I don't agree at all.
I didn't mean to imply "cheating." But certainly
I mean "ease of production - or manipulation"
requiring NONE of the so-called traditional skills
involving hand-eye coordination in the creation of.
In fact it's now entirely possible for a quadraplegic
with access to a computer and the available "prosthetic"
software to create perfectly acceptable "art."
>The challenges of producing an
>excellent image are no less than studio printmaking or even easel
>painting, for that matter.
That's where I disagree. What challenges there are
lie in learning to use computer software, which
admittedly can be daunting in the case of some
complicated programs. But even the most basic
computer paint/draw programs, combined with the
ability to scan/photograph imagery from other sources
allows anyone and everyone to "play around" at
being an artist without the need for ability to
draw a straight - to say nothing of an expressive - line.
>A good artist who knows what she/he is doing
>can do this. A bad artist will just be frustrated and maybe think about
>going to art school to hone the old skills.
Ummm...how about the "scam artist?" Cheers, Jack.
Gune E. Byrd
>If you want a good read try Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the
>Age of Mechanical Reproduction." You can find it on-line here:
>http://bid.berkeley.edu/bidclass/readings/benjamin.html
WoW! That essay is all over the charts, but I found this
paragraph seminal to the discussion at hand, in agreement
mostly with my point of view:
"An analysis of art in the age of mechanical reproduction must do justice to
these relationships, for they lead us to an all-important insight: for the
first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of
art from its parasitical dependence on ritual. To an ever greater degree the
work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for
reproducibility.<7> From a photographic negative, for example, one can make
any number of prints; to ask for the "authentic" print makes no sense. But the
instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic
production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on
ritual, it begins to be based on another practice--politics. "
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <-J6dnVXJT8z...@adelphia.com>, e...@nospamimpix.com says...
>
>
>>What you wrote above implies that the marriage of ink jet printing and
>>personal computers provide users with instand access to create something
>>that looks like "fine art" but is somehow counterfeit. Or that is is
>>somehow cheating. I don't agree at all.
>
>
> I didn't mean to imply "cheating." But certainly
> I mean "ease of production - or manipulation"
> requiring NONE of the so-called traditional skills
> involving hand-eye coordination in the creation of.
> In fact it's now entirely possible for a quadraplegic
> with access to a computer and the available "prosthetic"
> software to create perfectly acceptable "art."
>
But some quads paint with their teeth - and do a fine job of it.
>
>>The challenges of producing an
>>excellent image are no less than studio printmaking or even easel
>>painting, for that matter.
>
>
> That's where I disagree. What challenges there are
> lie in learning to use computer software, which
> admittedly can be daunting in the case of some
> complicated programs. But even the most basic
> computer paint/draw programs, combined with the
> ability to scan/photograph imagery from other sources
> allows anyone and everyone to "play around" at
> being an artist without the need for ability to
> draw a straight - to say nothing of an expressive - line.
Most of what I've seen in inkjet art, photography aside, are scanned
paintings done in traditional media. In fact, a very close friend of
mine has been doing this for years, and has recently retired to Baja
California as a result. http://www.johnramos.com
Making purly digital art, that's top-drawer, is very difficult, in my
opinion (and I do it all the time). You're correct about learning the
software, but if you look at the broad spectrum of what is offered out
there as "digital art" you can see that there is a divide between
artists who have experience and training in art, including traditional
media, and artists who have been reared in digital media only.
>
>
>>A good artist who knows what she/he is doing
>>can do this. A bad artist will just be frustrated and maybe think about
>>going to art school to hone the old skills.
>
>
> Ummm...how about the "scam artist?" Cheers, Jack.
Watch out, you're getting close to the "cheating" idea, which you have
disowned at the begining of your post. But all I'm arguing here is that
inkjet prints, like all works or art, will be subjected to scrutiny and
judgement and result in 99.9% failure to make it, while the tiny 0.1
succeeds. It's a jungle out there :-)
Regards, Erik
>
>