Giclee, inkjet print, reproduction? Art 101

Once upon a time when I started doing art fairs reproduction only meant one thing: printed material on paper with a tiny invisible dot pattern. There were some bitter discussions about whether or not these "reproductions" should even be in the art fairs. Fast forward to today and many new technologies.

Here's an excellent article from Minnesota Public Radio extolling/explaining the virtues of all:

While the market for buying and selling art tends to be the domain of the cultural elite, many of us have picked up a favorite wall-hanging at a local gallery or art fair. For those of us on a budget, it's just as important to know the value of what we're getting, and that can vary drastically depending on whether we're buying an "original," a "limited-edition print" or a "giclée." To better understand the differences myself, I consulted some experts around town. Arts 101: What's in a Name?

What's your input?

Replies

Rob Lineberger October 14, 2010 at 7:35pm

I am a painter doing my first art show, a small local show for a non-profit in my neighborhood. I am trying to learn the ethics of producing artwork for the purpose of selling en masse. I am producing a series of thematically unified small originals (rust shapes in water). I also have the means to produce archival reproductions of my larger paintings. If I sell reproductions and label them as such, is that frowned upon? I don't get a sense from the article or this discussion whether reproductions are not acceptable or whether they are an option that is being abused or misused by unethical vendors.
- Kathleen Neff > Rob Lineberger October 14, 2010 at 8:21pm
  
  Rob...Follow the guidelines ...what is accepted by the show and you will certainly be within your rights, artistically and ethically to show and sell reproductions of your own original paintings so long as the show rules allow it. It sounds as though you have the right handle on it and that you are ready to go...archival reproductions...labeled as to what they are and priced accordingly. Just be aware that some vendors ARE unethical or knowingly (or not) withhold the information (label, you mention) from the buyers. If the venue allows prints and does not say that digital reproductions are not allowed you are totally within your rights to do so. Many shows allow your display to include prints or unframed (matted and wrapped, however) pieces as long as it is not the bulk of the body of work (i.e. 30% or?). It is the individual who uses digital 'painting' production that annoys or raises the ire of a painter who feels this type of painting is neither a painting nor an original. You will have your originals and sell and label them as such and you will have quality, archival reproductions of them, labeled as such, but you will not be manipulating the original to create a secondary work. I don't think anyone can frown on this or consider it unethical to offer. And, there is a difference of opinion as to whether digital 'painting' is actually painting just because it is reproduced on watercolor paper and 'painted' via digital pots of colored ink. I have the greatest regard for the world of printing, but for me it is not the same as an original painting. It is more like a color overlay. It is a different product...a different art.
Larry Berman October 5, 2010 at 8:11pm

No mention of photography? But they do mention that it's considered an original in digital art but neglect to mention it's an original in photography also.

Larry Berman
Digital Jury Services
http://BermanGraphics.com
412-401-8100
- Connie Mettler > Larry Berman October 5, 2010 at 11:25pm
  
  Now come on, Larry. You can't have it both ways...this is an article about alternative printing processes as regards printmaking and paintings..."reproductions" in the largest sense. We both know that photos are originals, always.
  - Larry Berman > Connie Mettler October 6, 2010 at 7:24am
    
    What both ways? My postings have always been clear about output media. Any page about Giclee's that leaves out that it's also an original for the photography medium should not be used by art shows to establish definitions or you get wording like what Coconut Grove used to have (they've finally changed it to make it more accurate) that Giclees are only allowed in the digital art category and not in photography.
    
    Larry Berman
    Digital Jury Services
    http://BermanGraphics.com
    412-401-8100
    - Munks > Larry Berman October 6, 2010 at 12:13pm
      
      Calling photographic prints or digital art made solely on the computer "originals" is a false statement and does not make sense it terms of creating a venue to sell the image to another person so that they may walk away from an art show with the image in their physical possession.
      
      The only way a photograph or a work of digital art can manifest itself at an art show is as a print, a copy of the image taken by the camera or created on a computer. The issue isn't that they are copies, the issue is people keep trying to label one thing as another thing when it definitely is not so.
      
      Let's all just stand in front of a zebra and keep calling it a koala until it becomes one or at least until we all believe it's a koala, shall we ?!
Richard P Sullivan October 5, 2010 at 6:09pm

I have always thought that this was one of the most informative pieces regarding Prints and Reproductions. We use it as a touchstone for our reproduction policy.

http://www.naia-artists.org/work/2dmethods.htm