Notes

Are We Witnessing the End of Fine-Art Printmaking?
Wagging Tail, Severed Head

Is unscrupulous competition killing fine-art printmaking? Or has it killed it already, the movement we're seeing today being just the tail wagging after the head has been severed? Either way, we have been seeing the disappearance of the fine-art print as we know it. It's being accosted on all sides by an insidious digital-copy business which has illicitly co-opted the language of printmaking and managed to get its own.

The digital revolution has given rise to two notable novelties which affect printmaking. Let's focus on the good thing. Computers, clever image-creation/modification software and high-quality inkjet printers have enabled artists to generate original digital images and print them with astonishing quality on a variety of substrates. These "digital prints," didn't enter into the generally-accepted definition of original fine-art prints elaborated by the French National Committee on Engraving in 1964, because they didn't exist at that time, but today they have the best claim to being considered fine-art prints.

That 1964 definition stipulated:

Proofs either in monochrome or in color, drawn from one of several plates, conceived and executed entirely by hand by exactly the same artist, regardless of the technique employed, with the exclusion of every mechanical or photomechanical processes, will be considered original engravings, prints or lithographs. Only prints ending up in such qualifications have entitlement to be designated Original Prints.

The down side of the digital phenomenon is that very same technology has been used by unscrupulous dealers to create high-resolution reproductions of existing artwork and commercialize them as "fine-art prints." A few of these operators are knowingly violating the canons of the centuries-old fine-art-print tradition. Others are simply just ignorant. It's not an easy task to tell which is which. Whatever the case, t here is no excuse either for ignoring the tradition or for knowingly violating it.

Neither Moralizing Nor Nostalgia

This insistence upon respect for printmaking traditions is neither vapid moralizing nor luddite nostalgia. Over more than 500 years of proud history the term "fine-art print" has acquired the status of a trademark for artist-made serial-original artwork. What those works of art include may be up for discussion, but what they certainly usually do not include are art reproductions, regardless of the amount of sophistication of the copying methods employed.

What's at stake here are the livelihoods of a large number of contemporary fine-art printmakers whose valuable, exclusive handmade original prints-whether made up of etching tools or computers-are being unfairly undercut by dealers who, in a classical exemplory case of dishonest, disloyal competition, make reference to their inkjet copies as "giclee prints" or higher brazenly, "limited-edition giclee prints." As if the techniques and terminology of fine-art printmaking weren't arcane enough already to the often-ingenuous art-buying public, along come digital sharp operators to confuse them even more with the deliberate usurpation of printmaking's traditional vocabulary. They would have us believe this is simply commerce. It is, I submit, simple larceny.

This is not to state that t here is not a legitimate niche searching for inkjet or other styles of art reproductions. No one in her right mind would sustain that. It's just that those reproductions aren't fine-art prints, any longer than an offset art poster is. While it's undoubtedly printed, it's hardly a "print." To affirm otherwise so that you can commercialize digital reproductions at fine-art prices is fraudulent and really should be treated therefore in the marketplace, the media and the courts of law.

The Question of Big-Bucks Vested Interests

The problem is further complicated by the multi-billion dollar financial interests in play. All of the giant inkjet printer companies can see the potential of the giclee market and so are fomenting it with a vengeance. They make billions selling not merely the large-format inkjet printers found in making art reproductions, but additionally the inks and papers. They manage to remain largely above the fray, however, as their communications usually to make reference to their printers' utility when it comes to "graphic art" and "photographic" applications.

I want to share with you an anecdote that may give you an idea of the kind of clout the fine-art printmaking community is against. Two summers ago a giant computer company (such as a quarter of a million employees worldwide) flew some 60 American art-and-design-world opinion leaders to a charming European capital to stay in a five-star hotel and preview their new-model large-format inkjet printers. The "preview" contains a rigorous three-day course at the factory including the most intimate technical information on the brand new printers, and hands-on practice sessions. The daytime workshops were accompanied by a series of sumptuous meals and excursions in the evenings. The visit to the factory was followed up by an all-expense-paid weekend at the Arles Photography Festival in France.

This astute manufacturer spared no expense to convert these imaging opinion leaders to its new state-of-the-art large-format inkjet printers (also keep in mind the inks and papers) for use in a variety of design, industrial and art applications. What, in fact, may be the principal use to which these printers are put, in terms of volume use? You guessed it, fine-art reproductions. Though in a large proportion they are not sold as "reproductions" or "posters" but as "fine-art prints."

A Simple Experiment Confirms the Trend

How serious could it be? I recently did a simple experiment to gauge the extent of this printmaking death-watch-beetle phenomenon, an experiment that you can repeat yourself if you're inclined. On Saturday, July 5, 2008 I did so a Google search for the word "fine-art prints." I had to wade through 15 websites offering "artwork prints and posters" and "giclee prints" before encountering on page two of the search a niche site (ObsessionArt.com) dedicated to signed limited-edition photographs, but I had to trudge on to the 42nd entry on page five to find a hand-pulled fine-art print (Maria Arango's original woodcuts). After Maria's work I had to slog through four more pages of reproductions referred to as "prints" before finding another genuine printmaker, Laszlo Bagi, a screen-print artist. He appeared at the bottom of page nine of the Google search results for "artwork prints," 97th on the list. I had to keep on to page 11 to get the next sellers of authentic fine-art prints, Santa Fe Editions.

In every, my Google search resulted in just two purveyors of genuine fine-art prints out of your first 100+ results. That's less than 2%. Another 98+% are misrepresenting the lithographic, offset and inkjet reproductions they're selling as "artwork prints." Considering this preponderance of fraudulent competition, it's no wonder print buyers and potential print buyers are confused. Given this state of affairs, how is an honest printmaker supposed to make a living?

What to Do?

How might the worldwide fine-art printmaking community combat this onslaught? Obviously it must begin by recognizing the truth of the situation and opening a debate on the subject. For the time being, it occurs to me that they could focus on a worldwide program to educate both actual and potential art buyers-as to what is really a genuine fine-art print. They might also put some pressure on the search motors, who are, in all likelihood, unknowing collaborators in the web print-fraud operations. Why do Google, Yahoo, and the other search motors index art posters and giclee reproductions under the search term "artwork prints?" It could seem to be a significant simple matter for them to oblige sellers to present honest descriptions of their wares, under penalty of being banned.

There also seems to be obvious work to be done on the legal front, in the courts and legislatures. Some places, such as for example California and NY, have legislation to modify and protect both printmakers and print buyers. Nor would some political initiatives seem out of order. Why don't more countries and U.S. states have legislation set up to safeguard printmakers and print buyers? So what can printmakers do to promote the enactment of this legislation? How many other initiatives might professional printmakers undertake to recuperate their legitimate rights in these matters?

I don't have the answers to all or any these questions, but I think it's legitimate and necessary to raise them.

Mike Booth is the founder and editor of World Printmakers ([http://www.worldprintmakers.com]) the fine-art-print website, online because the year 2000, which has become the site of reference in neuro-scientific contemporary fine-art prints. Right from the start Booth has been an advocate of both genuine fine-art prints and live artists. (Dead artists don't benefit from sales of these work; art speculators do.) Besides being truly a visual banquet of fine-print images, the World Printmakers site is definitely focused on educating both artists and the interested public in the techniques and terminology of true artwork prints, and the threat posed by fraudulent marketing of giclee along with other reproductions as "limited-edition fine-art prints"
My Website: https://pbase.com/dohertywilcox8/root