Difference Between 'Litho' & 'Print'?
bre...@my-deja.com
know the the difference between a 'Lithograph'
a 'print' and are there any other types I should
know about? Any response will be greatly
appreciated. Thanks
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SJAMES684
world that you can sell paintings!
Libraries, as well as any number of school pupils, could provide an answer to
this one!
Jaxart
says...
I think the most confusing thing for the uneducated is knowing
the difference between "fine art prints" produced as works of
art by the artist, and "reproductions" of art work printed
commercially so an artist can mass-market the work. In the first
instance the artist is involved in the print-making process from
start to finish and the final product is the art work.
In the latter the artist simply relies on the
commercial firm to reproduce the colors and detail to replicate
the original, and usually the more prints that are produced
the cheaper the per-print price to the artist and the greater
the profit potential -- assuming the prints can then be sold!
--
============================================================
For a unique art experience visit:
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/index.html
============================================================
Thomas Ziorjen
Jaxart wrote:
> In article <20000705035759...@nso-bk.aol.com>, sjam...@aol.com
> says...
>
> >A lithograph is a print - or are you trying to boost your ego by telling the
> >world that you can sell paintings!
> >Libraries, as well as any number of school pupils, could provide an answer to
> >this one!
>
> I think the most confusing thing for the uneducated is knowing
> the difference between "fine art prints" produced as works of
> art by the artist, and "reproductions" of art work printed
> commercially so an artist can mass-market the work. In the first
> instance the artist is involved in the print-making process from
> start to finish and the final product is the art work.
> In the latter the artist simply relies on the
> commercial firm to reproduce the colors and detail to replicate
> the original, and usually the more prints that are produced
> the cheaper the per-print price to the artist and the greater
> the profit potential -- assuming the prints can then be sold!
Made even more confusing by the fact that *lithography* is the term used to
describe the process of an artist drawing on a stone that is inked and hand
printed, *and* the printing process by which a photographed or scanned painting
can be endlessly reproduced in a form that is basically a *poster* printed on
better paper. This confusion has made some people a lot of money.
Thomas
Erik A. Mattila
Here's a couple of things to clarify the matter:
First, distinguish between "Lithography" and "Offset Lithography"
"Lithography" is an old process, still used by artists who make
"hand-made prints," which involves the 'oil and water don't mix' idea.
It's called 'lithography' because it uses a flat stone, usually
limestone, as the 'plate.' The image (the part that prints onto the
paper) is made of a compound that is impervious to water, while the
background, the limestone, will accept water. In printing, watter if
first applied, and while the stone is still wet, ink is applied, and it
sticks to the areas that are not wet. The whole thing is squeezed
through a press, with a piece of paper, and you have your print. The
strong point of lithography over other methods of hand-made prints is
that it is the artist does the original drawing direcctly on the stone,
so it has that ability to create a print that has a sort of one-to-one
relationship in terms of the 'artists hand.' Lithographly is a lot of
work, so generally artists who want to show 'drawing' prefer this
method. There are commercial fine-art lithographic printing houses who
will do all the work for you, of course.
"Offset Lithography" is a highly mechanized version of this same basic
process, oil/water, but a stone is not used, being replaced with a metal
plate. The "off-set" is that the image is first printed onto another
surface before it reaches the paper. This is what modern, high-speed
printing is all about. The reason for the 'off-set' is primarily that
paper is very abrasive, and direct contact between paper and printing
plate, which is made of soft metal, would wear out the metal plate after
a short number of impressions.
Generally, the debates that go on in the art community are over the fact
that some artists have had their works printed by high-speed and sell
them as 'limited edition prints' in editions of three thousand or so.
This kind of mass marketing seems to contradict the idea of "Art" which
has a lot do do with rarity and uniqueness. So my guess is that when
you hear the "Litho vs. Print" issue cited, it is this concern.
There's really two basic ways to look at prints. One is as a
'reproduction,' such as having an acrylic, oil, or water color painting
reproduced and issued as a print edition. The second, which is more in
accord with the idea and history of printmaking, is that the image
itself is the 'original' and it is not a reproduction - such as a
woodblock print by Durer or any other artist.
If you are interested in reporducing your art work, I would suggest that
you look into digital printing. Just do an Internet search under the
terms "Iris Printing" or "Giclee" and you will find several sites with
an abundance of information on this. There are some archival issues
with this technology, mainly the lasting ability of the inks used, but
recent developments are now boasting a 200+ year life, and Giclee
printing is generally accepted in the Fine Art marketplace. The
advantage of this technology to the artist is that you can get your
prints to the market with a much smaller initial investment that
competing technologies.
Erik Mattila
Erik A. Mattila
> Made even more confusing by the fact that *lithography* is the term used to
> describe the process of an artist drawing on a stone that is inked and hand
> printed, *and* the printing process by which a photographed or scanned painting
> can be endlessly reproduced in a form that is basically a *poster* printed on
> better paper. This confusion has made some people a lot of money.
>
> Thomas
Just to be contentious, Thomas, I'm inclined to see the term "poster" as adding to
that confusion. On the one hand, you have the definition of "poster" which
requires the image to advertise something, and on the other, you have the use of
the term as a denigration by the art community - a sort of 'guilt by association'
strategy.
In my view, it all boils down to what you are selling. I mean, an artist can
'sell' the idea uniqueness and exclusivity (rarity) - at least these are part of
how the value of a work of art is calculated. But you can also sell the 'image'
itself, by its own virtue, without uniqueness and rarity being calculated into the
value formula.
I really like the story of Picasso's pottery. When he realized he was the highest
paid living artist in the world, somewhere back in the 50s, I think, he experienced
a crises in terms of his avowed Marxism. So he came up with the potter idea. He
had a pottery factory built on his estate, and employed a potter full time to
manufacture the saucers and tea cups. When a lot was ready for the kiln, he would
come in with the glaze and whip up his marks and signatures. The idea was to
create "Picassos" that were affordable to the rank and file, of course.
But it failed, because marketing numbers are often inconceivable. It turned out
that the international art market was so big that there were more than enough
people who had the bucks to pay $1500 for a Picasso tea cup. No matter how much he
produced, it would be gobbled up in this price range, which was of course beyond
the means of 'the people.'
Anyway, just some thoughts. Of course a 'fraud' would be an artist who markets
10,000 units of an image that is described as a limited edition of 250. But even
then, I wouldn't call them "Posters." Oh, yes, here's a conundrum. A famous
antique Movie Poster is reproduced and marketed as a collectable. It loses its
original function of 'advertising' the movie, so is it still a poster or what?
Erik
Andrew Werby
Thomas Ziorjen wrote in message <396359DA...@sunshine.net>...
>
>
>Jaxart wrote:
>> I think the most confusing thing for the uneducated is knowing
>> the difference between "fine art prints" produced as works of
>> art by the artist, and "reproductions" of art work printed
>> commercially so an artist can mass-market the work. In the first
>> instance the artist is involved in the print-making process from
>> start to finish and the final product is the art work.
>> In the latter the artist simply relies on the
>> commercial firm to reproduce the colors and detail to replicate
>> the original, and usually the more prints that are produced
>> the cheaper the per-print price to the artist and the greater
>> the profit potential -- assuming the prints can then be sold!
>
>Made even more confusing by the fact that *lithography* is the term used to
>describe the process of an artist drawing on a stone that is inked and hand
>printed, *and* the printing process by which a photographed or scanned
painting
>can be endlessly reproduced in a form that is basically a *poster* printed
on
>better paper. This confusion has made some people a lot of money.
>
>
>Thomas
[The former is called "fine art lithography", and is usually done in
editions smaller than 250 copies either by the artist, or under his or her
direct supervision, using high-quality paper and archival inks. The "poster"
type is called "offset lithography", and is a photo-mechanical process
usually involving color separation and dot-screen reproduction- no actual
stones are involved in the process. Cheap glossy paper is usual, as are
print runs in the tens of thousands. The inks generally fade rapidly with
light exposure.]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
>
>
Jaxart
and...@computersculpture.com says...
>no actual stones are involved in the process.
Another misconception is that 'stones' are always used in 'fine art'
lithography. You can print 'fine art' on a lithographic press
using metal plates too. It's the HAND of the artist that matters,
IMHO. Not the press process. I think that legitimacy in printmaking
requires the involvement of the artist in the product from start
to finish regardless of the mechanics of the process. Printing out
original art with the latest IRIS or other processes would not
negate the 'fine art' aspect if the artist is the one doing the
pre-press as well as the post-press.
Thomas Ziorjen
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> Just to be contentious, Thomas, I'm inclined to see the term "poster" as adding to
> that confusion. On the one hand, you have the definition of "poster" which
> requires the image to advertise something, and on the other, you have the use of
> the term as a denigration by the art community - a sort of 'guilt by association'
> strategy.
Ok. Yes. Guilty as charged! It comes out of my frustration at seeing people spend
$800 plus the cost of elaborate framing for so-called 'limited edition prints' -- some
even buying a couple extras to stick under the bed as investments.
>
>
> In my view, it all boils down to what you are selling. I mean, an artist can
> 'sell' the idea uniqueness and exclusivity (rarity) - at least these are part of
> how the value of a work of art is calculated. But you can also sell the 'image'
> itself, by its own virtue, without uniqueness and rarity being calculated into the
> value formula.
Understood Eric, and I have nothing against multiples -- it's just the huge 'limited'
edition scam that I'm snarly about.
>
>
> I really like the story of Picasso's pottery. When he realized he was the highest
> paid living artist in the world, somewhere back in the 50s, I think, he experienced
> a crises in terms of his avowed Marxism. So he came up with the potter idea. He
> had a pottery factory built on his estate, and employed a potter full time to
> manufacture the saucers and tea cups. When a lot was ready for the kiln, he would
> come in with the glaze and whip up his marks and signatures. The idea was to
> create "Picassos" that were affordable to the rank and file, of course.
>
> But it failed, because marketing numbers are often inconceivable. It turned out
> that the international art market was so big that there were more than enough
> people who had the bucks to pay $1500 for a Picasso tea cup. No matter how much he
> produced, it would be gobbled up in this price range, which was of course beyond
> the means of 'the people.'
>
> Anyway, just some thoughts. Of course a 'fraud' would be an artist who markets
> 10,000 units of an image that is described as a limited edition of 250.
One way I've heard about to weasel around this is to create limited editions for
different areas: i.e. an edition of 5,000 (for Canada) with no mention of the 5,000
for the eastern US, another 5,000 for the west etc... The whole notion of 'limited
editions' in those kinds of numbers is absurd in the first place. 12 or 25 or maybe
100, never to be reprinted -- that's a limited edition.
>
> But even
> then, I wouldn't call them "Posters." Oh, yes, here's a conundrum. A famous
> antique Movie Poster is reproduced and marketed as a collectable. It loses its
> original function of 'advertising' the movie, so is it still a poster or what?
By 'poster' I meant a cheap reproduction suitable for tacking to the dorm room wall or
somesuch. You know -- $15 - $20 instant decor. The crime of it is that many of the
'limited editions' are no better than that, but for obscene amounts of money. Well I
guess art *is* whatever you can get away with. As you've correctly pointed out, all
you need is consensus.
Thomas
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <fhL85.29390$i5.3...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
> and...@computersculpture.com says...
>
> >no actual stones are involved in the process.
>
> Another misconception is that 'stones' are always used in 'fine art'
> lithography. You can print 'fine art' on a lithographic press
> using metal plates too. It's the HAND of the artist that matters,
> IMHO. Not the press process.
Do your really think so, Jax. I've done both, and the metal isn't all
that bad, really, but somewhat inferior to stone insofar as retaining
the original graphic quality of the drawing. On the other hand,
levigating a stone is a chore straight out of hell, which makes the
metal very attractive.
Erik Mattila
Jaxart
>Do your really think so, Jax.
Not sure what your question addresses -- use of stone vs plates
or my comment that it's the hand of the artist that makes the
prints 'fine art.' In any case, I love working with the stones
too. But the plates are more useful for those kinds of prints
where I've mixed up the processes -- for example, printing with
litho plates and then overlaying linoleum cuts. There is no
one and only method of printmaking in my book. Purists can say
otherwise but today everyone can do as they please and end up
with a saleable product.
Nita Leland
www.nitaleland.com/articles/prints.htm
--
Nita
ni...@nitaleland.com
Exploring Color Web Site www.nitaleland.com
"What's New!" www.nitaleland.com/new.htm
<bre...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jud3n$kje$1...@nnrp2.deja.com...