Bev Doolittle print "The Grizzly Tree"
Red Sky Productions
Re Bev Doolittle's early limited edition print...Can anyone tell me:
(1) How many were made available?
(2) What year was it made available?
(3) What was the original price?
(4) What is the value today?
Info needed for thesis research. Any help much appreciated.
R/L Davis
Red Sky Productions wrote:
>
> Re Bev Doolittle's early limited edition print...Can anyone tell me:
If you are talking about a limited edition "REPRODUCTION" the answers are
as follows:
> (1) How many were made available?
Far too many.
> (2) What year was it made available?
Far too soon.
> (3) What was the original price?
Far too much.
> (4) What is the value today?
Probably about $25. The same value it had when it was produced.
Limited edition reproductions, offset reproductions of work originally
done in another media then signed and numbered to resemble fine art
prints, are ripoffs. The practice is totally unethical.
Sorry. I know that my answers don't really answer your questions but the
practice makes me angry.
Richard
Marliyn
Richard wrote:
snipped for bandwith
>
> Limited edition reproductions, offset reproductions of work originally
> done in another media then signed and numbered to resemble fine art
> prints, are ripoffs. The practice is totally unethical.
>
> Sorry. I know that my answers don't really answer your questions but the
> practice makes me angry.
> Richard
I agree with you and I believe it is a good idea to
educate people on the difference between
1. a limited edition artist's print and
2. mechanical reproductions erroneously called "prints"
using fugitive dyes which will fade in a matter of months
whether or not they are hand signed.
I also believe that saturating the market with these "prints"
has satiated people who might otherwise buy original art work.
Take Robert Bateman, for example.
No, you take him.
M
Al B. Tross
In article <33073C...@islandnet.com>, sib...@islandnet.com says...
>I agree with you and I believe it is a good idea to
>educate people on the difference between
No argument from here on that . . . BUT
>I also believe that saturating the market with these "prints"
>has satiated people who might otherwise buy original art work.
I see nothing wrong with mass-marketing of one's work.
It is a legitimate and time-honored way of getting one's works
before the general public. That anyone would pay any sort of
high price for such reproductions is the question here. If a
person is so gullible as to believe that these prints will ever have
value, then it is "buyer beware" as far as I am concerned.
I can't imagine that anyone with the funds to purchase first-
rate art work would spend the money on reproductions.
There certainly are mass-produced prints that have gained
substantially in value over the years, but these are prints that
have become scarce by virtue of now being in the antigue
category. AbT.
G*rd*n
Richard wrote:
| > Limited edition reproductions, offset reproductions of work originally
| > done in another media then signed and numbered to resemble fine art
| > prints, are ripoffs. The practice is totally unethical.
I don't see how it's unethical if the buyers know exactly
what they're getting. Presumably if the reproductions are
signed and numbered the artist has inspected and approved
each one, so it's not a question of careless production (or
if it is, that's what the artist wanted to produce).
Marliyn <sib...@islandnet.com>:
| I agree with you and I believe it is a good idea to
| educate people on the difference between
|
| 1. a limited edition artist's print and
|
| 2. mechanical reproductions erroneously called "prints"
| using fugitive dyes which will fade in a matter of months
| whether or not they are hand signed.
This is a different issue. There are two differences: one
between the traditional concept of printmaking, and prints
made using the same photographic/lithographic procedures
used in industrial color printing; and the other between
different qualities of materials.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Jon Noring
>> Limited edition reproductions, offset reproductions of work originally
>> done in another media then signed and numbered to resemble fine art
>> prints, are ripoffs. The practice is totally unethical.
>>
>> Sorry. I know that my answers don't really answer your questions but the
>> practice makes me angry.
>> Richard
>I agree with you and I believe it is a good idea to
>educate people on the difference between
>
>1. a limited edition artist's print and
>
>2. mechanical reproductions erroneously called "prints"
> using fugitive dyes which will fade in a matter of months
> whether or not they are hand signed.
>
>I also believe that saturating the market with these "prints"
>has satiated people who might otherwise buy original art work.
>
>Take Robert Bateman, for example.
>No, you take him.
O.K., let me play devil's advocate. I don't really agree or disagree with
what's said above, but I am confused, partly because non-artists like myself
don't have the intimate knowledge of the various technologies of duplicating
images onto paper. So, as said above, educate us! (But you only give two
dichotomous choices -- I think the truth is that there's a whole rainbow of
possibilities as I further discuss below.)
First question, are there offset lithographic prints that use, or claim to
use, more permanent dyes? The impression given above is that *all* offset
prints are bad, horrible, terrible, and will fade in months because *all*
inks are "fugitive". Period. End of story. But, is this really true, or
are there offset lithographers/printers out there who are employing at least
semi-archival inks (and/or special UV-absorbing overcoatings) which should
last for at least a couple decades in ordinary display lighting before fading
can even be noticed? And for a print, how long before noticeable fading
occurs is good enough for the *general public* who want to display artistic
images in their home at reasonable cost?
And what is the difference between a reproduction, artist's print, and offset
print? It seems to me there are many processes out there, a whole rainbow
of processes that go from pure hand-made to those employing fully automated
processes, and those that employ pigments with egg foundations versus those
that employ modern chemical dyes via inks.
Also, as a person who appreciates the artistic image, with less concern for
*how* the image is rendered (other than that it'd be nice if it has *some*
permanence to it and just plain looks nice on paper), isn't what is said above
disparaging to people like myself, the general public? It's sort of like the
"if you can't afford the big $$$ to display the print in your house the way
*we* think it should be printed, tough beans".
Just playing devils advocate. And hopefully some of the answers above will
also help to teach those of use reading this newsgroup, including myself, the
rainbow of techniques and technologies to reproduce art in printed form. As
many of you have read my previous posts, I plan to offer prints of ultra-high
resolution and quite beautiful digital fractal images (I call it fractal
"art", but I can understand why many of you may not call it "art" -- another
subject I hope to cover in the near future), but before I do market prints,
it's important for me to understand the gamut of technologies and forms by
which I can offer images. Thus I'm looking at everything from photographic
to dye-based prints to pigment-based prints -- and from highly technical
automated reproduction to essentially hand-made.
Jon Noring
--
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omni...@netcom.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the Electronic Books Mailing List (EBOOK-List) Today! Just send e-mail
to majo...@aros.net, and put the following line in the body of the message:
subscribe ebook-list
Susan Eshelman
nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
>O.K., let me play devil's advocate. I don't really agree or disagree with
>what's said above, but I am confused, partly because non-artists like myself
>don't have the intimate knowledge of the various technologies of duplicating
>images onto paper. So, as said above, educate us!
Greetings, Jon
You'll find answers to at least some of your questions in an article
entitled, "The Art of Printmaking: On Being an Original Print". It's
filed in our Lotos Leaves library, at:
http://www.aabc.com/lotos/tools/print.htm
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Susan Eshelman
Art Vision International
"Virtual Administrators of the World's Fine Art"
http://www.aabc.com
R/L Davis
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> Richard wrote:
> | > Limited edition reproductions, offset reproductions of work originally
> | > done in another media then signed and numbered to resemble fine art
> | > prints, are ripoffs. The practice is totally unethical.
>
> what they're getting. Presumably if the reproductions are
> signed and numbered the artist has inspected and approved
> each one, so it's not a question of careless production (or
> if it is, that's what the artist wanted to produce).
That is exactly the point. The buyers of limited edition reproductions do not know
"exactly what they are getting". I believe the practice is unethical because it
takes advantage of the uneducated buyer. Signing and numbering reproductions, I
believe, has less to do with showing that the edition has been "inspected and
approved" than it does with making them look like fine art prints. There is
virtually no need to inspect an edition of offset lithographs since the technology is
such that one will seldom find any variation at all, and any variation that does
occur can be, and usually is, culled out by the printer.
The limiting of the edition and numbering of each print, also makes it look like they
are rare. It may be true that there are only 600 or 6,000 (or, in the case of Ms.
Doolittle, 60,000!) prints of that particular image, but artists who do limited
edition reproductions do so many editions that the total number of prints produced is
astronomical. Limited edition reproductions are common. They are not rare.
Richard
R/L Davis
>
> >> Limited edition reproductions, offset reproductions of work originally
> >> done in another media then signed and numbered to resemble fine art
> >> prints, are ripoffs. The practice is totally unethical.
> >>
> >> practice makes me angry.
> >> Richard
>
> >I agree with you and I believe it is a good idea to
> >educate people on the difference between
> >
> >1. a limited edition artist's print and
> >
> >2. mechanical reproductions erroneously called "prints"
> > using fugitive dyes which will fade in a matter of months
> > whether or not they are hand signed.
> >
> >I also believe that saturating the market with these "prints"
> >has satiated people who might otherwise buy original art work.
> >
> >Take Robert Bateman, for example.
> >No, you take him.
>
> what's said above, but I am confused, partly because non-artists like myself
> don't have the intimate knowledge of the various technologies of duplicating
> dichotomous choices -- I think the truth is that there's a whole rainbow of
> possibilities as I further discuss below.)
>
> First question, are there offset lithographic prints that use, or claim to
> use, more permanent dyes? The impression given above is that *all* offset
> prints are bad, horrible, terrible, and will fade in months because *all*
> inks are "fugitive". Period. End of story.
Offset printing is a good thing. If you want a reproduction of a fine art
painting
or a fine photograph you can buy offset prints in poster/print shop. Spending
$15 to $25 for a reproduction of an Ansle Adams photo, Monet painting, etc. is
good bang for the buck.
> But, is this really true, or
> are there offset lithographers/printers out there who are employing at least
> semi-archival inks (and/or special UV-absorbing overcoatings) which should
> last for at least a couple decades in ordinary display lighting before fading
> can even be noticed? And for a print, how long before noticeable fading
> occurs is good enough for the *general public* who want to display artistic
> images in their home at reasonable cost?
The issue of the fading of poster/prints, then, becomes less important, since
such reproductions are not expected to last forever. A poster of one of my
favourite artists has been hanging in my house for nearly 10 years with no
apparent sign of fading, and I expect it will last another 10 years, or at
least I
finally get tired of it.
And I don't know if there are archival inks for offset lithography. If you
find out
let me know. There are UV coatings that supposedly keep fugitive inks from
fading, but from my own simple experiments, they seem to have very little
effect.
> And what is the difference between a reproduction, artist's print, and offset
> print? It seems to me there are many processes out there, a whole rainbow
> of processes that go from pure hand-made to those employing fully automated
> processes, and those that employ pigments with egg foundations versus those
> that employ modern chemical dyes via inks.
Jon, Your question here is difficult to answer. I feel that you may be
getting
confused by all the possibilities you are discovering. But; a "reproduction"
is,
just that, a reproduction, or copy, of something done before. A poster, for
example, is a reproduction of a painting or photograph. A limited edition
reproduction is a copy of a work in another media, usually a painting. An
"artist's print", or a fine art print, is started and finished in the
particular print
medium. A Rembrandt etching, for example, is not done from a painting, but is
done solely as an etching. And an "offset print" is a term (that I use,
anyway)
when I am speaking of a print done by offset lithography which is usually, but
not always, done on a mechanical press. Offset lithography is the process used
to produce anything from magazines to posters to "limited edition
reproductions".
You are right, there is a whole rainbow of processes out there. I am not sure
where you got the idea of using egg, however. (I use egg tempera in my
paintings but as far as I know egg is not used in any print process. I may
have
confused you on this one in one of my earlier letters.)
> Also, as a person who appreciates the artistic image, with less concern for
> *how* the image is rendered (other than that it'd be nice if it has *some*
> permanence to it and just plain looks nice on paper), isn't what is said above
> disparaging to people like myself, the general public? It's sort of like the
> "if you can't afford the big $$$ to display the print in your house the way
> *we* think it should be printed, tough beans".
It is exactly because people like you, the general public, as you say, do not
easily understand the different ways of making prints that I get so angry at
the
production of limited edition reproductions and the selling of these
reproductions
for the "big $$$" you mention. You don't need to spend big bucks for fine
reproductions of works of art, as I mentioned above, and when the uneducated
public spends many hundreds of dollars for something that is just a
reproduction
masquerading as a work of art, well, I just despair.
> Just playing devils advocate. And hopefully some of the answers above will
> also help to teach those of use reading this newsgroup, including myself, the
> rainbow of techniques and technologies to reproduce art in printed form. As
> many of you have read my previous posts, I plan to offer prints of ultra-high
> resolution and quite beautiful digital fractal images (I call it fractal
> "art", but I can understand why many of you may not call it "art" -- another
> subject I hope to cover in the near future), but before I do market prints,
> it's important for me to understand the gamut of technologies and forms by
> which I can offer images. Thus I'm looking at everything from photographic
> to dye-based prints to pigment-based prints -- and from highly technical
> automated reproduction to essentially hand-made.
>
> Jon Noring
Thanks for being the devil here Jon. Perhaps we will educate a few in the
process.
Richard
R/L Davis
> >educate people on the difference between
>
>
> >has satiated people who might otherwise buy original art work.
>
> It is a legitimate and time-honored way of getting one's works
> before the general public.
If an artist wants to mass market his or her work it can be done in quite
legitimately ways. Original, hand-made, fine art prints are the "time-honored"
way of doing this. I also see nothing wrong with producing posters or
unlimited reproductions of one's work.
> That anyone would pay any sort of
> high price for such reproductions is the question here. If a
> person is so gullible as to believe that these prints will ever have
> value, then it is "buyer beware" as far as I am concerned.
I have never been enough of a true believer in the capitalist system to fully
endorse the old "buyer beware" slogan. There are too many examples of
people simply being taken advantage of, and I don't think artists should be
taking advantage of an uneducated and "gullible" public. I always thought Art
was supposed to be above all that.
> I can't imagine that anyone with the funds to purchase first-
> rate art work would spend the money on reproductions.
And I have met too many. Fine people who have shown me their "valuable"
collections of reproductions. I am usually at a loss for words.
> There certainly are mass-produced prints that have gained
> substantially in value over the years, but these are prints that
> have become scarce by virtue of now being in the antique
> category. AbT.
And how many of the "limited edition reproduction" variety do you think will
retain their current price after 25 years?
Richard
jcd
> > I see nothing wrong with mass-marketing of one's work.
> > It is a legitimate and time-honored way of getting one's works
> > before the general public.
>
> If an artist wants to mass market his or her work it can be done in quite
> legitimately ways. Original, hand-made, fine art prints are the "time-honored"
> way of doing this. I also see nothing wrong with producing posters or
> unlimited reproductions of one's work.
So if someone does want to sell reproductions of their work, what is
the
correct name to call the work? I'm thinking of doing this but don't
want to
mislead anyone into thinking that what they're buying is a true print.
I'd
also like a term that sounds appealing to people. I don't want people
thinking
that they're getting a Xerox copy either.
It sounds like the reproductions should not be numbered. Should they be
signed?
Julie
Deirdre
In article <5e85he$1...@news.istar.ca>, R/L Davis
<dav...@tallships.istar.ca> wrote:
> That is exactly the point. The buyers of limited edition
> reproductions do not know "exactly what they are getting".
> I believe the practice is unethical because it takes
> advantage of the uneducated buyer.
Caveat emptor.
I like prints. I own lots. I prefer them. Why? Because the *quality* of
art I like isn't something I can often afford to indulge in original form,
even among relatively unknown artists.
> The limiting of the edition and numbering of each print, also makes
> it look like they are rare. It may be true that there are only 600
> or 6,000 (or, in the case of Ms. Doolittle, 60,000!) prints of that
> particular image, but artists who do limited edition reproductions
> do so many editions that the total number of prints produced is
> astronomical. Limited edition reproductions are common. They are
> not rare.
Tell that to buyers of some of Wysocki's cat prints. I'm still kicking
myself for not buying that $195 print that now sells for $2600. Then
again, I wouldn't sell it because I like the print. I just wish I could
afford one.
Even Kinkade offers about 15-20 images a year and he's considered
prolific. He has one edition then it's retired. Some are reissued as
smaller pieces in open editions, but far from all of them.
_Deirdre
--
http://www.sover.net/~deirdre
First alien says to the second alien, who is looking at an
apparently empty pedestal in an art gallery, "Yes, I know
it's invisible. But Is It Art?" -- Martin Young
R/L Davis
Julie wrote:
> So if someone does want to sell reproductions of their work, what is the
> correct name to call the work? I'm thinking of doing this but don't want to
> mislead anyone into thinking that what they're buying is a true print.
> I'd also like a term that sounds appealing to people. I don't want people
> thinking that they're getting a Xerox copy either.
>
> It sounds like the reproductions should not be numbered. Should they be
> signed?
Well, obviously if it's a poster, you call it a poster, if it' a reproduction you
can call it that. An offset reproduction IS a "print", but it is not fine art, and
should not be called a "fine art print".
Part of the problem is how you intend to market your prints. I'm sure it is
quite obvious to anyone buying a print in a poster/print shop that the
reproduction they are getting for $25 is not an original work of art.
Rather than being a photomechanical copy as with reproductions, fine art
prints are usually generated within the printing process itself, executing one
colour, deciding on, then executing the next colour, etc., the process itself
generally dictates the limited number of finished prints. After a complex
print is made in this way, it is virtually impossible to reprint the edition even
if one wanted to make the edition UNlimited. To my mind, deliberately
limiting an offset reproduction (which, in fact, could be printed endlessly if
one wanted), then numbering them,is just a way to make them look like a
fine art print, and to make them seem more rare than they are.
I once signed a reproduction of one of my paintings for a friend. As soon
as I did it I realized that I had just given that common print a value that it
didn't deserve, and I have never put my signature on a reproduction of one
of my works again. An artists signature on a work of art is seen as his or
her "stamp of approval" and a sign of the works authenticity. I feel that an
artists signature on a reproduction is misleading, and suggests to others
that it is more valuable than it actually is.
Richard
Charles Eicher
In article <5eagem$8...@news.istar.ca>, R/L Davis
<dav...@tallships.istar.ca> wrote:
> Julie wrote:
> > So if someone does want to sell reproductions of their work, what is the
> > correct name to call the work?
[snip]
> > ..I'm thinking of doing this but don't want to
> > mislead anyone into thinking that what they're buying is a true print.
> > I'd also like a term that sounds appealing to people. I don't want people
> > thinking that they're getting a Xerox copy either.
Huh? You're making a copy of a print? A print of a print?
I believe the correct art-historical term is 'replica'.. A painted copy of
a painting, both made by the same artist, is a replica. I don't think there
is a separate term for prints..
> Rather than being a photomechanical copy as with reproductions, fine art
> prints are usually generated within the printing process itself, executing one
> colour, deciding on, then executing the next colour, etc., the process itself
> generally dictates the limited number of finished prints. After a complex
> print is made in this way, it is virtually impossible to reprint the
edition even
> if one wanted to make the edition UNlimited.
That is utterly ridiculous. I can see you never worked with printmakers.
Using conventional techniques at any fine-art print atelier, it is easily
possible to make any number of prints. After a single edition, if you
wanted to make some more, it would be very easy to make another run. That
is why printmakers usually print a 'cancellation plate' showing that the
original plate is destroyed.
I know of one world famous atelier (famous for clients like Lichtenstein,
Rauschenburg, Stella, etc) that at one time, didn't make cancellation
plates, they had a rather tricky way of doing business.. They'd make an
edition, targeting a run of 300, for example. They'd print about half of
the edition, see if it sold well, and then print the rest of the edition.
If the print never sold well, they'd just store the plates in their
warehouse, in case there was demand at a much later time.. If the print was
very successful, they'd print a LOT more than the edition. Of course,
they'd call in the artist to ligitimately sign the prints, but usually, the
artist had long forgotten how many prints he'd signed on the last pass. The
atelier only got caught when a collector found two prints marked with the
same number (i.e. two prints marked "135/300" were discovered).
> ..To my mind, deliberately
> limiting an offset reproduction (which, in fact, could be printed endlessly if
> one wanted), then numbering them,is just a way to make them look like a
> fine art print, and to make them seem more rare than they are.
This doesn't just apply to offset web printing.. I often see 'limited
edition' prints, done in standard serigraphy or plate lithography, that
have runs 'limited' to 30,000 or even 50,000. The term has little meaning,
except to decieve the gullible buyer.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
R/L Davis
Deirdre wrote:
> In article <5e85he$1...@news.istar.ca>, R/L Davis
> <dav...@tallships.istar.ca> wrote:
> > That is exactly the point. The buyers of limited edition
> > reproductions do not know "exactly what they are getting".
> > I believe the practice is unethical because it takes
> > advantage of the uneducated buyer.
> Caveat emptor.
As I said in another post on this subject, "buyer beware" is not a slogan
I subscribe to. When people use this phrase, are they suggesting that it is
O.K. to deceive in the market place as long as you can get away with
it? And by inference, are you agreeing with me that there is a certain amount
of deception going on with signed, limited edition reproductions?
> I like prints. I own lots. I prefer them. Why? Because the *quality* of
> art I like isn't something I can often afford to indulge in original form,
> even among relatively unknown artists.
So if you own "lots" you could have spent all that money on the same
number of posters, or unsigned prints, at $15 to $30 each, have
virtually the same quality of reproduction on your walls, and still have
plenty left over to buy a real piece of art. (And you wouldn't have
reproductions masquerading as fine art hanging on your wall.)
> > The limiting of the edition and numbering of each print, also makes
> > it look like they are rare. It may be true that there are only 600
> > or 6,000 (or, in the case of Ms. Doolittle, 60,000!) prints of that
> > particular image, but artists who do limited edition reproductions
> > do so many editions that the total number of prints produced is
> > astronomical. Limited edition reproductions are common. They are
> > not rare.
> Tell that to buyers of some of Wysocki's cat prints. I'm still kicking
> myself for not buying that $195 print that now sells for $2600. Then
> again, I wouldn't sell it because I like the print. I just wish I could
> afford one.
Are you suggesting here that buying expensive reproductions is a sound
investment strategy? Or is it perhaps more like buying scratch-and-win
tickets? And yes, I wish I had kept (and of course never touched
it) my Mickey Mantle rooky card, but that doesn't mean I want to go out
and spend my money on now overpriced sport cards in the faint hope
that they will one day put my son through school. And if I had one of
those few reproductions that a person might actually be able to sell on
the secondary market for more than he/she paid for it, I would cash it in
quick. Limited edition reproductions have virtually no intrinsic value
and the bubble will soon enough burst.
Richard
Jon Noring
In article R/L Davis <dav...@tallships.istar.ca> writes:
>Deirdre wrote:
>>In article R/L Davis <dav...@tallships.istar.ca> wrote:
>>> That is exactly the point. The buyers of limited edition
>>> reproductions do not know "exactly what they are getting".
>>> I believe the practice is unethical because it takes
>>> advantage of the uneducated buyer.
>> Caveat emptor.
>As I said in another post on this subject, "buyer beware" is not a slogan
>I subscribe to. When people use this phrase, are they suggesting that it is
>O.K. to deceive in the market place as long as you can get away with
>it? And by inference, are you agreeing with me that there is a certain amount
>of deception going on with signed, limited edition reproductions?
Well, since reading this newsgroup, I've become very aware of the whole
issue and will look more warily in the future when my wife goes into a
gallery and falls in love with a print. More on this at the end.
>> I like prints. I own lots. I prefer them. Why? Because the *quality* of
>> art I like isn't something I can often afford to indulge in original form,
>> even among relatively unknown artists.
>So if you own "lots" you could have spent all that money on the same
>number of posters, or unsigned prints, at $15 to $30 each, have
>virtually the same quality of reproduction on your walls, and still have
>plenty left over to buy a real piece of art. (And you wouldn't have
>reproductions masquerading as fine art hanging on your wall.)
Well, sometimes there are prints out there that one must obtain via the
"limited edition" route, like it or not, since they are not offered in the
$15 to $30 range. Then it becomes a matter of cost -- is a person willing
to pay whatever for that offset print from the work by that artist? Of
course, it's been argued, to help sell the prints at higher cost (and thus
higher profit to both the artist and the gallery), they are marketed by the
galleries to be "limited editions" and thus may increase in value over the
years (some unscrupulous sellers will use the word "will" instead of "may",
but "may" is the closest to the truth).
In the case of my wife and I, though, we've bought several so-called "limited"
edition prints the last decade or so because we like them, they were not that
unaffordable, and did so with nary any consideration of future collector value.
We also have original oils by local Livermore (California) artists since those
were *not* offered in print, and so we bought them because *we liked them* and
we could afford them at the time.
>>> The limiting of the edition and numbering of each print, also makes
>>> it look like they are rare. It may be true that there are only 600
>>> or 6,000 (or, in the case of Ms. Doolittle, 60,000!) prints of that
>>> particular image, but artists who do limited edition reproductions
>>> do so many editions that the total number of prints produced is
>>> astronomical. Limited edition reproductions are common. They are
>>> not rare.
>> Tell that to buyers of some of Wysocki's cat prints. I'm still kicking
>> myself for not buying that $195 print that now sells for $2600. Then
>> again, I wouldn't sell it because I like the print. I just wish I could
>> afford one.
>Are you suggesting here that buying expensive reproductions is a sound
>investment strategy?
No, Deirdre is reflecting what many print buyers are up against. We happen to
have a Wysocki cat print and know its "value". But we'll never sell it
because we love it -- we bought it because we love it. You are right that
there does seem to be a marketing racket (but a legal one, I might add)
involved in the *limited edition print* industry, but all Deirdre wants is a
print of a Wysocki's cats to hang up in her house *because obviously she
loves them*. But she also is sharing the pragmatic consideration that she
must now pay big $$$ to get one, and is kicking herself that maybe she should
have stretched and paid not-so-big-but-still-a-lot-of-$$$ to get it when it
came out. You should show a little more empathy for her no-win position.
>tickets? And yes, I wish I had kept (and of course never touched
>it) my Mickey Mantle rooky card, but that doesn't mean I want to go out
>and spend my money on now overpriced sport cards in the faint hope
>that they will one day put my son through school.
But Deirdre wants a print of Wysocki's cats but can't afford it. In a
pragmatic sense, Deirdre is sort of a victim (I hate to use that word but
I don't know what else to call it) -- the pragmatics are that Wysocki's cats
she wants will probably not be reissued until the copyright runs out (75
years) and that those who have a copy will not part with it except for big
$$$. I think in this case (but not necessarily for other prints) the asking
price is not artificial -- it is real because lots of people want a Wysocki's
cats print hanging up in the house *because they like them* (cat lovers are
a rabid bunch they are!), not because they covet it's value. Many people I
know who buy print art, even limited editions, do so not because of collector
value, but because they like it and want to hang it up on the wall. Prints
of art works are not the same as baseball cards, or coins or stamps -- the
motivations for collecting are, on average, different (and I used to collect
coins and old 78 RPM records, so I'm very familiar with the collector
"mentality"). Of course, you will find people who collect limited edition
prints strictly for the collector value (there's even a new multi-level
marketing business to do this!) but I'm talking about the population as a
whole.
>those few reproductions that a person might actually be able to sell on
>the secondary market for more than he/she paid for it, I would cash it in
>quick. Limited edition reproductions have virtually no intrinsic value
>and the bubble will soon enough burst.
Their value is in how well people like them. I will sell my Wysocki's
cats *if* somebody came to me and offered $5000 for it (I think it's so-
called market value is near $1000), but if offered market value, I won't
sell it because *we all love it* and would miss it if we sold it -- once
sold, it may be hard to get a copy later. I think the value of Wysocki's
cats prints is *real* based on supply-and-demand, and the demand is due
to mainly people who love these prints and love the artist, not because of a
belief that they are rare and valuable. And they will go up in the future
as new generations are born, grow up, see a copy, and want it to hang on
their wall.
Now, Richard, if you commission some pirate editions in China and resell
them here in the U.S., you'd be doing a valuable service to the thousands
who want a Wysocki's cats print. But expect the Federal Marshalls to come
a-knocking with weapons drawn and with serious faces. :^) This illustrates
that even though many limited editions may have sold 1000 copies, if there's
100,000 people who want it because they like it, the price will go up
because of supply-and-demand, and not by any artificial situation.
My views on this whole matter is that the best way to "fight" this marketing
"ploy" is knowledge -- tell others, and do so in an objective way. The
Internet is a great medium to spread the word. In addition, artists who
decry the commercialization and misleading claims (such claims may be legal,
however) of the "limited edition" market need to quit bellyaching, quit
attacking people like Deirdre and myself because we've "prostituted"
ourselves and bought limited edition prints because we like them (a Dale
Carnegie approach will always work better), and instead organize to best
communicate to the public what you perceive to be the real truth. As a
libertarian, I oppose any more laws than we now have regarding consumerism
(thus I support and understand Deirdre's "caveat emptor" statement), but I
whole-heartedly support people banding together to collectively lobby their
viewpoint and spread their knowledge to the rest of the public (this is a
very pro-libertarian view, btw). Some of the great pro-consumer gains have
been achieved not by consumer laws, but rather by an informed public and
better communication -- Consumer's Union is an example which comes to mind.
Marliyn
For the gullible buyers.
If you want to know if your "print" is a print, all you have to do
is carry around a little magnifying glass. If you see dots in the
glass when looking at your "print" then it is a reproduction and
you should pay no more than $15-25 for a good quality reproduction.
In a hand-pulled limited (to us it means less than 100) edition
artist's print - no dots.
Jon Noring
In article Marliyn <sib...@islandnet.com> writes:
But what about famous artists who only market reproductions of their paintings
via the "limited print" route, where prices of $100 to $200 are not uncommon?
Are you saying that artist is prostituting themselves? Are you saying they
don't have the right to set the price of their art reproductions? Do they
deserve to make a living when they are able to because of a special talent
that most would-be artists do not have? Or should they accept their lot as
an artist and forego the fruits of their labor and live in poverty (or work
in some other profession and moonlight as an artist) like most artists
unfortunately have to do? Does anybody other than the free-market have the
right to set the price of things, including art and art reproductions? Is
it right for anybody in the marketing chain from artist to buyer to make a
profit for the work they do?
And what about the average buyer who falls in love with a certain
reproduction and has got to have it hanging in their house, yet it is not
available as a reproduction, and never will be, in the $15 to $25 range as
you mention? Are you saying they should forego their pleasure and walk away,
and buy a less wanted work of art because it is "priced right"? Of course,
you'd say if everybody did this then the price would drop. This is true.
But you can't *force* anybody to buy or not buy -- all you can do is educate
them on the larger picture of the "limited edition" marketing strategy, and
the difference between a fine art print and a reproduction, and *encourage*
rather than demand they not buy any reproduction marketed in a way you think
is deceptive. That's all you can do, and that's all that is ethically right
to do -- calling a buyer "gullible" for paying $200 for a "limited edition"
reproduction is, in my opinion, uncalled for and exceeds what is ethical
given the situation I outlined above -- it is a way to psychologically bully
people to do what you think they should do.
Charles Eicher
> For the gullible buyers.
> If you want to know if your "print" is a print, all you have to do
> is carry around a little magnifying glass. If you see dots in the
> glass when looking at your "print" then it is a reproduction and
> you should pay no more than $15-25 for a good quality reproduction.
Umm.. that's a little misleading. What about mezzotints, and other graphic
effects? And besides, I know some artists do use halftone grids when
preparing stencils.
> In a hand-pulled limited (to us it means less than 100) edition
> artist's print - no dots.
Unless the artist chose to make the stencils using 'dots'..
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Marliyn
Will Call wrote:
>
> In article <3309EC...@islandnet.com>, sib...@islandnet.com says...
>
> > If you see dots in the
> >glass when looking at your "print" then it is a reproduction and
> >you should pay no more than $15-25 for a good quality reproduction.
>
> need a magnifying glass to see the dots in that case . . . W.C.
Sorry I don't consider, Lichenstein to be an artist, just an
illustrator/copier.
Will Call
Hugh Little
Hello, I thought I'd wade in here with my humble opinions.
I've read most of the many posts concerning this topic and due to the
volume of mail, I hope I don't insult anyone if I paraphrase a statement
or thought without acknowledgement.
I buy and sell primarily French Art Nouveau and Deco
prints,Posters,illustrated books and Advertising. Roughly 20% of my
stock ( mainly advertising ) is photo offset lithography. I ALWAYS make
this perfectly clear to a potential buyer. I have always been relatively
comfortable with the following distinction when applied to "PRINTS".
A "print", even 1, is in essence, a duplication . There are no "prints"
pulled from Old Master Paintings. There may be reproductions that are
printed, but the original in that case is a reproduction itself. I think
that fine art prints as we have come to understand the term, denotes a
work on paper that has been in conception and execution, a work of an
artist involved hands on throughout the various stages of it's creation.
The hand pulled lithographs that Lautrec, entitled "Elles"(100 pulled),
can in no way be compared with a 20000 copy run, produced in facsimile
100 years later using photomechanical means.
In the modern day "Limited Edition" print, There is still an original,
somewhere. However the means of reproducing the image negates the use of
"hands on" involvement.
I don't think that photo offset reproduction in itself is the problem
here. Some people use Mechanical means as their intended duplicating
medium. Stone lithography itself was disparged by "real" artists when it
was initially developed, as were many other methods of relatively
efficient and low cost means of reproduction.
Let's face it. Quite a few of us simply find no artistic value in the
work that these
"Limited Edition", print people create. Artistic sensibilities removed,
who cares what anyone buys if they are happy with it? I think the
problem, for me anyway, is this "Limited Edition" tag. There are many
many people who are duped by this sales tactic. They believe that what
they are buying is the equivelant of an indexed pension. Art prices are
based on many factors, rarity being one of them. My local newspaper
prints less copies in a day than the latest Doolittle. And I honestly
believe that they will fetch an identical price 100 years from now. I
don't think we should stick an arbitrary limit of 100 on prints, but
really, running off 50000 prints, signing them, and expecting them to
appreciate in the long run is expecting a little bit too much.
Dali, severely damaged his reputation, and the resale potential of his
work by signing practically anything before his death. Another notable
Canadian artist is being represented by offset copies of his oil
paintings, signed by his daughter! Yikes
If you look at this market, yes there is short term financial
appreciation but it is created solely by the manufacturers and sellers
in what I have to admit is a brilliant sales job. But sooner or later,
as always, demand will set the price, and I doubt there will be 10000
let alone 50000 people willing to pay even the original price on these
items. As far as I know, very few of these works are represented in any
prestigious provincial, state, or National collection. These
institutions ( while they must purchase prudently) base their
acquisition of Art on artistic merit not on monetary speculation.
Yikes, got carried away again, sorry. What do you think? Hugh
R/L Davis
Marliyn wrote:
>
> For the gullible buyers.
> If you want to know if your "print" is a print, all you have to do
> glass when looking at your "print" then it is a reproduction and
> you should pay no more than $15-25 for a good quality reproduction.
>
> artist's print - no dots.
Nany artists use a pointelest technique, myself included, when making
serigraph prints, which when magnified show little dots. These are not
the halftone dots you are talking about so there can be some confusion.
As well, stochastic halftone screens are now being used which make such
a fine dot that they are not easy to see, and don't look like a usual
halftone. Dots are no longer what they used to be.
Richard
Jon Noring
In article HLI...@IBM.NET writes:
>...Artistic sensibilities removed,
>who cares what anyone buys if they are happy with it? I think the
>problem, for me anyway, is this "Limited Edition" tag. There are many
>many people who are duped by this sales tactic. They believe that what
>they are buying is the equivelant of an indexed pension. Art prices are
>based on many factors, rarity being one of them. My local newspaper
>prints less copies in a day than the latest Doolittle. And I honestly
>believe that they will fetch an identical price 100 years from now. I
>don't think we should stick an arbitrary limit of 100 on prints, but
>really, running off 50000 prints, signing them, and expecting them to
>appreciate in the long run is expecting a little bit too much.
Good point.
Your first sentence I think is the crux of the issue. Those who find the
"limited edition" marketing tactics to be distasteful can inform others about
the situation. Otherwise, there's not much one can do about it. I did
mention that maybe an association should be formed to collectively educate
the public about the consumer issues involved with the marketing of these art
reproductions. I'd also start a letter writing campaign to Consumers Union
(publishers of Consumer Reports) to look into and report upon this issue.
But outside of these and similar things, people will pay what they will pay
for whatever reason, and it's none of our business to actually interfere with
this (say by promoting laws targeted against this marketing strategy -- I say
leave the government out of it).
BTW, very little is being discussed about the *fact* that most of the art
reproductions today are marketed solely through the limited edition market,
and so if a person absolutely loves a certain work by a certain artist, and
wants a copy, the limited edition market is the only way to obtain a copy
within a reasonable price. We can decry this, but thems' the facts. I'm
proud to own a Wysocki's cat print, not because it is worth a lot due to
demand, but because I love the *image* it depicts. No matter how the image
is rendered, as long as it looks pleasing and is technically well-rendered,
I look past the fact that it is an offset reproduction and enjoy the image
itself. Or is that difficult for some of you to understand?
When I collected 78 RPM records, I coveted the original recordings and would
not even obtain later repressings, even if the later repressings were done
on higher quality shellac (there's nothing nicer than a silky smooth late
1920's Okeh pressing, with Columbia Blue Wax a close second -- gawd I love
those records -- they are a work of art in and of themselves). Ultimately, I
realized it was the *music* on them that I really enjoyed, and today my
collection consists mainly of very high quality transcriptions onto CD using
state-of-the-art digital processing to clean up the recording (e.g., Sonic
Solutions by George Morrow). I think the analogy towards art reproductions
is similar.
Another analogy is what I'm currently contemplating: issuing very high quality
prints made of fractal art created at very high resolution. The purist would
say that the only way to view the *original* files is in its original form --
on a monitor (a few fractal artists seem to feel that way). But the monitor
has resolution limitations. It's hard to show a 19,000x14,000 resolution
image on a 1024x768 display -- maybe someday this will be possible. But
rendered onto Cibachrome or Iris or EverColor (thus a reproduction!) it is
breathtaking and surpasses the beauty of what I can even view on my monitor.
Today I looked at my first Iris test print of a 6000x4000 fractal image (not
even my highest rez work), and I stared and studied at it for an hour since
it is the first time I've ever seen that image in its full glory -- up to
that time I could only look at pieces or low-rez imitations of that image and
imagine what it looked like. But the format I'd use to *reproduce* it (and
unlimited if I wanted to) is the way that best renders the image. Again,
there may be lessons here for how we view art reproductions, including
"limited edition" prints.
>If you look at this market, yes there is short term financial
>appreciation but it is created solely by the manufacturers and sellers
>in what I have to admit is a brilliant sales job. But sooner or later,
>as always, demand will set the price, and I doubt there will be 10000
>let alone 50000 people willing to pay even the original price on these
>items.
Very true. Deirdre's earlier comment "Caveat emptor" is right on. But there
will be a few prints where demand will exceed supply (until the copyright
lapses or if the artist/owner decides to break faith, and maybe the law, by
reissuing the print reproductions). An example is Wysocki's cat prints, and
we will see prices stay high for those prints because there's a lot of *cat
lovers* out there who look past the format the image is presented on and
focus on the image itself. That's what the artist probably intended anyway,
to present an image to the world from their imagination -- we can't hear it
or taste it, but we can see into the artists mind. Of course, with the
original we might also see and even feel the brushstrokes, but this is the
only advantage of the original that I can see from an art perspective.
> As far as I know, very few of these works are represented in any
>prestigious provincial, state, or National collection. These
>institutions ( while they must purchase prudently) base their
>acquisition of Art on artistic merit not on monetary speculation.
Probably true. But a well-done offset litho reproduction (or an Iris,
EverColor, or Cibachrome from an 8x10 Ektachrome transparency) can quite
faithfully reproduce at least the image (not including brush strokes, etc.)
and so people can look past the medium the art is placed upon and view the
image itself. I think it wrong to denigrate reproductions themselves because
they are reproductions. That's elitism maybe driven by envy. The "limited
edition" marketing strategy is an easy and worthwhile target, but the
impression I'm starting to get is that there's more to this than meets the
eye which seems to be driving the rabid anti-limited edition people. Suffice
to say I just don't understand the mentality that some artists have towards
reproductions -- it's like it's a crime against humanity or something.
Marliyn
R/L Davis wrote:
> Snipped
> the $600 to $1000 range. (Would you be as happy with your reproductions if you
> payed that much for them?) I was appalled that anyone would sell a reproduction
> for that kind of money, and saddened for the uneducated buyer who payed so
> much. And the question I would raise is why were they sold for those prices? I
> believe the answer is that they were "masquerading" as fine art. The uneducated
> buyer saw fine art prints in the galleries, perhaps prints they were not "in love"
> with, and went to the frame shop and saw the same kind of print (looks the same
> to them, no, even better), liked the image even more and comparing the price,
> went with the reproduction. Why else would anyone pay that much for such a
> thing?
>
> I do believe the problem will go away on its own as the prices are driven down,
> and they will be driven down by market forces (unless the major distributers are
> able to corner the market and keep prices artificially high). The market SHOULD
> drive the price to a level of, I would guess, around $100 because, at that price,
> there is ample profit for artist, wholesaler and distributer (it all depends on the
> size of the edition of course).
>
>snipped for bandwith
>Richard
Who would have thought that "photomechanical reproductions
vs fine art prints" would have brought on such a response?
You would think that I had suggested that we put an
environmental tax on gasoline, or something.
And while I am at it, are you printers out there using
vegetable dyes to prevent further damage to the environment?
I have learned a lot more about modern printing methods
from the exchange, but I have not changed my mind or my position.
Does anyone wonder why they can get a beautiful, large, repro.
of a Johannes Vermeer for $15.00, while at the same time repros of living
artists' paintings can go for $1,000.00 or more for the same quality of
ink/paper/reproduction process?
Oh, gee, I guess it must be the quality of the orignal painting.
Why not go for an original work of art, or just get some
well-designed wall paper?
Marilyn
Canada (Home of Robert Bateman, who had so many prints to sign
that he had FEDEX send them (30,000) on a special plane
from Florida to his hotel room for signing.
Will Call
In article <330B31...@islandnet.com>, sib...@islandnet.com says...
>Sorry I don't consider, Lichenstein to be an artist, just an
>illustrator/copier.
You aren't talking about the same Roy Lichtenstein that I am
evidently. And by the way, I long ago ran a printing press that
had the capability for turning out hundreds of prints an hour
from metal plates that were photosensitive but were NOT made
using any kind of screens and did not contain ben-day dot
patterns in the printed image. The machine is called a
MULTIGRAPH and is used for quick and cheap runs by many
commercial printers. W.C.
R/L Davis
Charles Eicher wrote:
> In article <5eagem$8...@news.istar.ca>, R/L Davis
> <dav...@tallships.istar.ca> wrote:
> ...
> > Rather than being a photomechanical copy as with reproductions, fine art
> > prints are usually generated within the printing process itself, executing one
> > colour, deciding on, then executing the next colour, etc., the process itself
> > generally dictates the limited number of finished prints. After a complex
> > print is made in this way, it is virtually impossible to reprint the
> > edition even if one wanted to make the edition UNlimited.
>
> That is utterly ridiculous. I can see you never worked with printmakers.
>
> Using conventional techniques at any fine-art print atelier, it is easily
> possible to make any number of prints. After a single edition, if you
> wanted to make some more, it would be very easy to make another run. That
> is why printmakers usually print a 'cancellation plate' showing that the
> original plate is destroyed.
O.K. I did a bad job of trying to simplify the issue and make a point. In my
own defence, however, I was not thinking of the industrial strength prints of
the blue chip artists you mention, but rather of my own work and some local
artists whose work I am familiar with. One does woodblock prints, carving
the block, printing the first colour, carving it more, printing it again, etc.
Another does serigraphs using the tusche method, and in a process similar
to the woodblock above, blocks part of the screen, prints it, blocks more of
the screen, prints it again, etc. Another does etchings where, after printing
the plate, she cannibalises it by cutting it up into pieces and prints it again,
either on that print or on another print. Still another who does drypoint
etchings where the plate wears down after about 50 pulls and no longer
prints properly. And lastly, my own serigraphs which are made with up to 50
separate screens, printed in sets of 3 to perhaps 6 colours at a time, more
screens are made and printed, etc. Of all these, my work would be the one
that could actually be re-editioned, but if I went back to the atelier (yes, I do
work with an atelier), and said I wanted to print them again, I think my printer
would go running, screaming into the night!
But, of course, you are correct in pointing out that many forms of fine art
printing can be printed endlessly, save the cancellation plate.
Richard
R/L Davis
Jon Noring wrote:
>
> ...
> Well, sometimes there are prints out there that one must obtain via the
> "limited edition" route, like it or not, since they are not offered in the
> $15 to $30 range. Then it becomes a matter of cost -- is a person willing
> to pay whatever for that offset print from the work by that artist? Of
> course, it's been argued, to help sell the prints at higher cost (and thus
> higher profit to both the artist and the gallery), they are marketed by the
> galleries to be "limited editions" and thus may increase in value over the
> years (some unscrupulous sellers will use the word "will" instead of "may",
> but "may" is the closest to the truth).
In the short run, "may" is true, but I believe that in the long run none of these
things will retain their value. There are simply so many of them out there, and the
price of newer ones will continue to drop as good old "supply and demand" works
at the market (bringing the value of the older ones down with them), and as they
fade away on peoples walls, and as the taste of people in the future changes.
There will be a time when every garage sale will have several at $50, or $10,
maybe $5? (But hay, we have already said that we are not buying them for their
supposed dollar value, so who cares, right?)
One thing I am noticing is that people mention buying these reproductions for
under $200. At least this is a good thing. I have not been out to check the prices
for quite a while, but if the prices fall to a more reasonable level, say in the $100
range, perhaps the whole thing will be less distasteful to those of us who find
them competing with fine art prints. My own distaste for signed reproductions is
based on the prices I was seeing quite a few years back, which tended to be in
the $600 to $1000 range. (Would you be as happy with your reproductions if you
payed that much for them?) I was appalled that anyone would sell a reproduction
for that kind of money, and saddened for the uneducated buyer who payed so
much. And the question I would raise is why were they sold for those prices? I
believe the answer is that they were "masquerading" as fine art. The uneducated
buyer saw fine art prints in the galleries, perhaps prints they were not "in love"
with, and went to the frame shop and saw the same kind of print (looks the same
to them, no, even better), liked the image even more and comparing the price,
went with the reproduction. Why else would anyone pay that much for such a
thing?
I do believe the problem will go away on its own as the prices are driven down,
and they will be driven down by market forces (unless the major distributers are
able to corner the market and keep prices artificially high). The market SHOULD
drive the price to a level of, I would guess, around $100 because, at that price,
there is ample profit for artist, wholesaler and distributer (it all depends on the
size of the edition of course).
> No, Deirdre is reflecting what many print buyers are up against. We happen to
> have a Wysocki cat print and know its "value". But we'll never sell it
> because we love it -- we bought it because we love it. You are right that
> there does seem to be a marketing racket (but a legal one, I might add)
> involved in the *limited edition print* industry, but all Deirdre wants is a
> print of a Wysocki's cats to hang up in her house *because obviously she
> loves them*. But she also is sharing the pragmatic consideration that she
> must now pay big $$$ to get one, and is kicking herself that maybe she should
> have stretched and paid not-so-big-but-still-a-lot-of-$$$ to get it when it
> came out. You should show a little more empathy for her no-win position.
Sorry, I've got no empathy for that problem. Why doesn't this guy just make them
as posters, or a poster/print, and sell them for a reasonable price to his loving
fans? There is an artist, Steve Hanks I believe, that reproduces his work in this
way (I don't know if he does limited prints as well, but that is not the issue). I
obviously don't want to compare the images, cats vs. erotica, but at least this guy
is making his reproductions available to his fans for a reasonable price.
Lets play "what if". I know some in this news group don't care for "what if" but in
this case I think it is reasonable. What if your favourite recording artist decided
to reproduce his or her CD's as limited editions only, and sold them for $500 each.
This idea is not that far out of the question. Like the offset reproduction of a
painting, the CD is a reproduction of music. I would guess, and I am reasonably
sure I am not too far off the mark, that the production costs of both, in a limited
edition of, say, 60,000 (Doolittle), are nearly the same (that's right, nearly the
same). Would this be a good thing?
>big chunk removed about the value of Wysocki's cat prints.
I went looking for a Wysocki on the net but they all said "file not found". Anybody
know where on the net I can see one. It might help me appreciate this argument
better. Can I ask you; about how big is your copy, about how much did you pay
for it, how many were in the edition, and does he do more of these "cats"? (If so,
Deirdre can always wait for the next one.)
> My views on this whole matter is that the best way to "fight" this marketing
> "ploy" is knowledge -- tell others, and do so in an objective way. The
> Internet is a great medium to spread the word. In addition, artists who
> decry the commercialization and misleading claims (such claims may be legal,
> however) of the "limited edition" market need to quit bellyaching, quit
> attacking people like Deirdre and myself because we've "prostituted"
> ourselves and bought limited edition prints because we like them (a Dale
> Carnegie approach will always work better), and instead organize to best
> communicate to the public what you perceive to be the real truth.
I feel that by starting, then continuing this thread, I am attempting to tell others
of my perspective on this issue, and I hope I am doing it in a reasonably objective
manor (I'm afraid that it is as objective as I can get!) I certainly don't see my
arguments as attacks on anyone, and I don't think I am just "bellyaching". If you
have difficulty with my arguments then we can continue the debate, but if you
have difficulty with the message I am conveying, well, don't shoot the messenger.
> As a
> libertarian, I oppose any more laws than we now have regarding consumerism
> (thus I support and understand Deirdre's "caveat emptor" statement), but I
> whole-heartedly support people banding together to collectively lobby their
> viewpoint and spread their knowledge to the rest of the public (this is a
> very pro-libertarian view, btw). Some of the great pro-consumer gains have
> been achieved not by consumer laws, but rather by an informed public and
> better communication -- Consumer's Union is an example which comes to mind.
Well good. I am glad I have caught your attention concerning this issue. On with
the debate.
Richard
R/L Davis
Jon Noring wrote:
> ... BTW, very little is being discussed about the *fact* that most of the art
> reproductions today are marketed solely through the limited edition market...
Jon,
I believe that you will find more offset lithographs in a poster shop than in
the limited edition shops. And in terms of number of sales, since the price
is vastly different for one, I would guess more posters or unlimited
reproductions are sold.
> We can decry this, but thems' the facts. I'm
> proud to own a Wysocki's cat print, not because it is worth a lot due to
> demand, but because I love the *image* it depicts...
As long as you know what you are buying and feel the price is reasonable, you
are welcome to it. But, personally, I would rather buy an offset reproduction
for $25 than $150.
> When I collected 78 RPM records, I coveted the original recordings and would
> not even obtain later repressings, even if the later repressings were done
> on higher quality shellac... Ultimately, I realized it was the *music* on
> them that I really enjoyed, and today my collection consists mainly of very
> high quality transcriptions onto CD using state-of-the-art digital processing
> to clean up the recording (e.g., Sonic Solutions by George Morrow). I think
> the analogy towards art reproductions is similar.
And, as I mentioned in another post, what if your favourite musician only
reproduced his/her music on limited edition CD's? Would you happily collect
them? Good analogy isn't it?
> Another analogy is what I'm currently contemplating: issuing very high quality
> prints made of fractal art created at very high resolution. The purist would
> say that the only way to view the *original* files is in its original form --
> on a monitor (a few fractal artists seem to feel that way). But the monitor
> has resolution limitations. It's hard to show a 19,000x14,000 resolution
> image on a 1024x768 display -- maybe someday this will be possible. But
> rendered onto Cibachrome or Iris or EverColor (thus a reproduction!) it is
> breathtaking and surpasses the beauty of what I can even view on my monitor.
Your question here is an interesting one, and at the heart of digital art.
I do not feel that the original is on the monitor, any more than I feel the
original photograph is on the negative. Finding a way to physically, and
ethically in terms of our ongoing discussion, produce (rather than "reproduce")
your work will be an interesting quest. I look forward to seeing what you
decide. BTW, I am told by a photographer friend that Evercolour is no longer
on the net. Do you know if they are still in business?
> Today I looked at my first Iris test print of a 6000x4000 fractal image (not
> even my highest rez work), and I stared and studied at it for an hour since
> it is the first time I've ever seen that image in its full glory -- up to
> that time I could only look at pieces or low-rez imitations of that image and
> imagine what it looked like. But the format I'd use to *reproduce* it (and
> unlimited if I wanted to) is the way that best renders the image. Again,
> there may be lessons here for how we view art reproductions, including
> "limited edition" prints.
>
> >If you look at this market, yes there is short term financial
> >appreciation but it is created solely by the manufacturers and sellers
> >in what I have to admit is a brilliant sales job. But sooner or later,
> >as always, demand will set the price, and I doubt there will be 10000
> >let alone 50000 people willing to pay even the original price on these
> >items.
>
> Very true. Deirdre's earlier comment "Caveat emptor" is right on...
So, if you reproduce your image as an Iris print, will you make it
completely clear to the buyers that they will quickly fade, or just say
"caveat emptor"?
> > As far as I know, very few of these works are represented in any
> >prestigious provincial, state, or National collection. These
> >institutions ( while they must purchase prudently) base their
> >acquisition of Art on artistic merit not on monetary speculation.
>
> Probably true. But a well-done offset litho reproduction (or an Iris,
> EverColor, or Cibachrome from an 8x10 Ektachrome transparency) can quite
> faithfully reproduce at least the image (not including brush strokes, etc.)
> and so people can look past the medium the art is placed upon and view the
> image itself. I think it wrong to denigrate reproductions themselves because
> they are reproductions. That's elitism maybe driven by envy.
Has anyone in these posts denigrated reproductions "because they are
reproductions"? Or have some of us denigrated the practice of selling
reproductions for overly inflated prices?
> The "limited
> edition" marketing strategy is an easy and worthwhile target, but the
> impression I'm starting to get is that there's more to this than meets the
> eye which seems to be driving the rabid anti-limited edition people. Suffice
> to say I just don't understand the mentality that some artists have towards
> reproductions -- it's like it's a crime against humanity or something.
Well, you did just said that it's a "worthwhile" target. After you read the most
recent posts you can let us know if you still don't follow, and we can continue
the debate. (Or we could just agree to disagree.)
Good luck with your project Jon. Keep me informed, eh?
Richard
Regiment's Hobby Shop
Marliyn <sib...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>I have learned a lot more about modern printing methods
>from the exchange, but I have not changed my mind or my position.
>Does anyone wonder why they can get a beautiful, large, repro.
>of a Johannes Vermeer for $15.00, while at the same time repros of living
>artists' paintings can go for $1,000.00 or more for the same quality of
>ink/paper/reproduction process?
>
>Oh, gee, I guess it must be the quality of the orignal painting.
>
>Why not go for an original work of art, or just get some
>well-designed wall paper?
>
>Marilyn
Well...neither Vermeer nor his estate is getting a cut from the sales of
his work and a living artist is supposed to limit and control the sales
of his prints (HA!) in order to create a certain amount of exclusivity.
Personally I think any (offset litho or commercially produced) print over
$25.00 or so is overpriced. Today I'm in a cantankerous mood and will
submit that there is only a very loose connection between the quality of
art and it's cost.
AT
Charles Eicher
In article <5ef8rp$d...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, don't...@email.com (Will Call)
wrote:
> How about if it's signed "Lichtenstein" -- of course you won't
> need a magnifying glass to see the dots in that case . . . W.C.
Ha.. In some cases, a lichtenstein print is also a painting.. My ex, who
worked at the unscrupulous atelier I previously described, once spent
considerable time retouching a lichtenstein edition.. It seems that the
stencils weren't made properly, and if only minor registration problems
happened, obvious trapping errors were visible, leaving huge white gaps
around the dots where they met an adjacent color. The atelier didn't have
enough good prints to complete the edition, so she had to go in with ink
and a photo-retouching brush and fill in all the gaps. BTW, these prints
sold for upwards of $15,000 each (back in the booming art market of the
80's..)
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Heritage Editions
To add my two cents worth, most reproduction prints will NOT appreciate
in value. However, limited edition prints by famous artists CAN and
probably WILL appreciate in value (take Picasso lithographs for
example). I work for a publishing company
(http://www.ozemail.com.au/~printco) that publishes reproduction antique
prints, the originals of which can be worth thousands of dollars, but
the reproductions will never be worth more than what is paid for them.
Reproduction prints serve a different purpose. I find that most people
buying reproductions are buying them purely for decoration rather than
investment or collecting.
Thanks for listening,
Andrew Zietara
Sales Manager
Heritage Editions
Deirdre
In article <5ecc5f$a...@news.istar.ca>, R/L Davis
<dav...@tallships.istar.ca> wrote:
> Deirdre wrote:
> > I like prints. I own lots. I prefer them.
> So if you own "lots" you could have spent all that money on the same
> number of posters, or unsigned prints, at $15 to $30 each, have
> virtually the same quality of reproduction on your walls, and still have
> plenty left over to buy a real piece of art. (And you wouldn't have
> reproductions masquerading as fine art hanging on your wall.)
The stuff I want isn't available in prints. I own posters too, but the
quality of these is significantly less.
_Deirdre
_Deirdre
**note spam-block in header** email addr is: dei...@sover.net
Deirdre
In article <5ej1bi$5...@news.istar.ca>, R/L Davis
<dav...@tallships.istar.ca> wrote:
> One thing I am noticing is that people mention buying these
> reproductions for under $200. At least this is a good thing.
*Most* of the prints I have are $200 or less. Some of them were as low as
$25. *One*, the one hanging in the biggest spot in the living room, cost
more. I do, btw, own original art also and also own a couple fine art
prints. If I had the money, I'd probably stick to serigraphs.
Deirdre
> No, Deirdre is reflecting what many print buyers are up against. We
> happen to have a Wysocki cat print and know its "value".
Ooh, can I visit?
> But we'll never sell it because we love it -- we bought it
> because we love it.
Well, my husband loved it too, so that's one reason (now that he's gone)
that it's something I'd like to have one day.