This has been bugging me, b/c I get a lot of stuff from artists here at the magazine. Many people are trying to push giclee as the next thing in limited-edition printmaking (which, arguably, it is, since so many seem to be adopting it).
Unfortunately, I can’t see how it can be classified as fine art printmaking. To me, it’s just using a really good, really big inkjet printer to print your image. Whoop-de-doo. IMO, no more valuable than making a commercial 4-color poster print.
I’ve done traditional printmaking in the past, and remember the hours of torment that I and other artists went through, not only in preparing our screens or plates, but also in making the actual silkscreen prints or lithographs–a difficult process that often produced errors and gradually degraded your print source. I don’t see touching up a scan in Photoshop and then clicking “command-P” as being on par with that. And I esp. have a problem w/ calling it a “limited edition” when you can wait five years and print the same damn file again if you want.
I guess this argument also brings up the subject of the price/collectibility of photographic prints (since, once you have the negative, you can make endless copies). I feel pretty much the same about that, unless the print required some darkroom finnesse (which many do) and not just the snap of a button.
Seems to me that the question of it’s collectibility is already answered, as the definiation of collectibility is something being collected, not something being hard to produce.
Honestly, I am a digital artist. I put as much thought and expression into my work (and probably as much or more time) as an artist using more tradtional materials. Why should my method invalidate my meaning just because it is perceived as easier?
I do digital art as well. I’m afraid I just don’t see the physical print of a giclee as being equal to a screen print, block print, or lithograph.
Here’s an analogy: If I paid the same price for tickets to two musical performances, both being touted as equal, and then discovered that, at one show, the singer was actually just lip-synching to a recorded track and not performing live at all, I’d be PO’d. Or, more accurately in this case, that one performance was live and for the other one, they wheeled out a big TV and just played one of the singer’s videos. It’s not that the video wasn’t good, and worthy of praise, it’s just that it doesn’t compare to an actual live performance.
Similarly, I think there’s more intrinsic value in a print which requires skill to produce the physical output–and the edition is truly limited. I don’t denigrate the art which has been printed via giclee, but the object of the print has a value closer to that of a mass-produced art book or poster than to a screen print or lithograph made with human hands that could have come out wrong w/o careful attn. from the printmaker.
I’ve seen giclee prints of paintings and deem them superior to “traditional” lithos or any other duplication method. They appear to hold truer color to the original, including luster and the mottled details of brush strokes.
And that’s that. It is what it is: a copy (often limited edition to ensure collector value) that looks pretty fine on your wall. It’s about as close as you can get to owning an original, and the “artistry” involved in the process is largely in the electronics, which were built and programmed by people. But remember that a buyer of a “copy” is looking for appeal and value; quite frankly, when dealing with anything other than an original, who really cares how much “artistry” went into producing the dupe, except that one can appreciate the quality of the handiwork of the dupe. The giclee still looks better.
The value of any fine art (painting, drawing, sculpture, et al.) is extrinsic (one singular original). The value of a copy (one of a multitutde of equal quality), giclee, litho, or any print is largely intrinsic, and in the eye of the beholder, and the depth of their wallet, IMHO.
Hmm. Maybe this is my problem. I’m coming at it from a different angle. Any printmaking/printmakers I’ve been involved with have been making prints of…prints. That is, the print is the first and only rendering of the artwork, and not a reproduction of some other painting, photo, etc.
As a means to reproduce previously-existing art, I understand giclee (i.e., it’s superior to 4-color separation lithography, etc.). As to claims that it is equivalent to original art…
If a giclee isn’t fine art, than neither is a lithograph.
The value isn’t in the process, it’s in a) the desirability of the original, and b) the limited press run.
I’ll agree that there’s more “love” put into something that’s printed by hand with plates, but that kind of love is becoming less relevant every day. Would you rather buy a car that was lovingly made by hand for $1M or one off the assembly line for $20k?
I’m sure when the first lithographs were made, there were people out there screaming “Heathens!”, since everyone wasn’t an original.
It seems to me that the artistry of a digital image is in the digital image and that only on the artist’s screen (where hands and eyes meet the medium) is a true “original.” Prints of digital images have yet to generally accepted by the curators of museums as original fine art, in so far as my experience has shown.
However, digital art IMHO is similar to the art of platemaking. The value is in the plate, where the artist’s hand met the medium, and any prints made from the plate are all representative of what the artist accomplished with the plate. This is not really any different from a digital artist creating with, say, Photoshop. The value is in the digital info, and prints made of that file are “copies,” just like a print made from a plate.
Bill H: I generally agree. However, to tighten your auto analogy, people do pay more for a “hand crafted” Rolls Royce or Bently. And hand-crafted restorations of classic cars certainly fetch a fine value, although now it’s more antique value and less “fine art.”