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 following the head has been severed? Either way, we are 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 includes illicitly co-opted the language of printmaking and made it its own.

get more info has given rise to two notable novelties which affect printmaking. Let's start with the good news. 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 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 a legitimate claim to being considered fine-art prints.

That 1964 definition stipulated:

Proofs either in black and white or in color, drawn from one of several plates, conceived and executed entirely yourself by the same artist, regardless of the technique employed, with the exclusion of any and all mechanical or photomechanical processes, shall be considered original engravings, prints or lithographs. Only prints meeting with such qualifications have entitlement to be designated Original Prints.

The down side of the digital phenomenon is that this very same technology is being utilized by unscrupulous dealers to create high-resolution reproductions of existing artwork and commercialize them as "fine-art prints." Many of these operators are knowingly violating the canons of the centuries-old fine-art-print tradition. Others are simply just ignorant. It's not easy to tell which is which. Whatever the case, there 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 a lot more than 500 years of proud history the term "fine-art print" has acquired the status of a trademark for artist-made serial-original works of art. What those works of art include could be up for discussion, but what they certainly usually do not include are art reproductions, whatever the amount of sophistication of the copying methods employed.

What's at stake listed below are the livelihoods of thousands of contemporary fine-art printmakers whose valuable, exclusive handmade original prints-whether created with etching tools or computers-are being unfairly undercut by dealers who, in a classical example of dishonest, disloyal competition, make reference to their inkjet copies as "giclee prints" or higher brazenly, "limited-edition giclee prints." As though the techniques and terminology of fine-art printmaking were not 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 might have us believe that is simply commerce. It is, I submit, simple larceny.

This is not to state that there is not just a legitimate niche searching for inkjet or other types of art reproductions. Nobody in her right mind would sustain that. It's just that those reproductions are not fine-art prints, any more than an offset art poster is. While it's undoubtedly printed, it's hardly a "print." To affirm otherwise in order to commercialize digital reproductions at fine-art prices is fraudulent and should be treated as such 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 also the inks and papers. They have the ability to remain largely above the fray, however, as their communications usually to refer to their printers' utility when it comes to "graphic art" and "photographic" applications.

I want to share with you an anecdote which will give you a concept of the kind of clout the fine-art printmaking community is against. Two summers ago a giant computer company (just like 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 like the most intimate technical details of the new printers, and hands-on practice sessions. more info were accompanied by a series of sumptuous meals and excursions in the evenings. The stop by at 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 own new state-of-the-art large-format inkjet printers (and don't forget the inks and papers) for used in a variety of design, industrial and art applications. What, actually, is the principal use to which these printers are put, with regard to volume use? You guessed it, fine-art reproductions. Though in the vast majority they are not sold as "reproductions" or "posters" but as "fine-art prints."

A Simple Experiment Confirms the Trend

How serious is it? I recently did a simple experiment to gauge the extent of this printmaking death-watch-beetle phenomenon, an experiment which you can repeat yourself if you're inclined. On Saturday, July 5, 2008 I did so a Google seek out the term "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 site (ObsessionArt.com) focused on signed limited-edition photographs, but I had to trudge 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 in the bottom of page nine of the Google serp's for "artwork prints," 97th on the list. I had to continue to page 11 to find the next sellers of authentic fine-art prints, Santa Fe Editions.

In every, my Google search turned up just two purveyors of genuine fine-art prints from the first 100+ results. That's significantly less than 2%. The other 98+% are misrepresenting the lithographic, offset and inkjet reproductions they're selling as "fine art prints." Considering this preponderance of fraudulent competition, it's no wonder print buyers and potential print buyers are confused. With all this situation, how can be 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 start by recognizing the truth of the problem and opening a debate on the subject. For the time being, it occurs if you ask me that they could start with a worldwide program to educate both actual and potential art buyers-as from what is really a genuine fine-art print. They could also put some strain on the search motors, who are, in all probability, unknowing collaborators in the web print-fraud operations. Why do Google, Yahoo, and another search motors index art posters and giclee reproductions beneath the search term "artwork prints?" It could seem to be quite a simple matter for them to oblige sellers to present honest descriptions of these wares, under penalty of being banned.

T here also appears to be obvious work to be achieved 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 that legislation? How many other initiatives might professional printmakers undertake to recuperate their legitimate rights in these matters?

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

Mike Booth may be the founder and editor of World Printmakers ([http://www.worldprintmakers.com]) the fine-art-print website, online since the year 2000, which includes end up being 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 their work; art speculators do.) Besides being a visual banquet of fine-print images, the planet Printmakers site has always been dedicated to 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"
Homepage: https://hoppesehested6.bravejournal.net/post/2023/05/07/The-Best-Recession-Proof-HOME-BASED-BUSINESS-For-Economic-Hard-Times