I have many artist friends who sell their original pieces but also sell giclees and prints. I have my originals in a local gallery and I'm thrilled but sales are very slow and I am interested in feedback from artists who sell both. Some artists think it cheapens the original, others say not true. Any help here would be greatly appreciated.
You need to be a member of Art Fair Insiders to add comments!
Replies
Because we are getting ready to sell "ORIGINAL" artwork on my website I have recently spent a LOT of time researching "original and limited edition" when it comes to photography and here is what I have found so far.
1.when dealing with photography it really comes down to 2 main things and you don not have to print on Gliceele to be original in fact today simply buying a Gliceele is not more an assurance of a work being original then buying a traditional print. so with that in mind there are 2 main factors that most experts agree are key.
a. To be considered "original" in photography the Artist must be directly involved in EVERY aspect of the artwork. They must take the photo, they must do the editing or be there and participate in the editing process, they must print the work or be there and participate in the printing process, and they must do or participate in the matting and framing of the work as well.
b. It has to be ONE OF A KIND or 1 of 100 of a kind lol. if you are selling 1 artwork or a limited 100 edition then there can only be 1 or 100 if limted of that print in the world. however you process and edit and print that artwork has to be unique and only on that one or those limted number of prints. any reproductions must be edited and done diffeerntly and labled as reproductions.
2. In the end ORIGINAL comes down to 1 simple thing. the reputation of the artist / COA issuing authority. in fact, in the end of the day this is the only thing that actually matters and here is why. We all know there have been a lot of reports and concerns of fraud and people buying reproductions thinking they are buying originals and paying the price for it. this fraud has hurt everyone because now customers are very gun shy of laying out the $ for original arwork because they are worried that they might not be getting an actual original and they have no way of knowing if it is or not when buying it. So because the only person that TRULY knows if a piece is TRULY an original is the COA issuing authority / artist. Because of that, because they are the ONLY people that truly know how it was produced and if it meets the criteria to be original the reputation and integrity of the COA issuer is really what makes the difference today and art buyers know this.
In fact, because of this we are going to be videotaping our entire process or producing original artwork and working with recognized art experts in the field to make sure our process would qualify as "original"and then detail to buyers the entire process and what they are buying in order for us to build our reputation which in turns increases the value of OUR COA original artowrk and it builds from there.
The downside is the same as it is with anything dealing with trust, it takes years to build it and earn it and only 1 mistake to ruin it forever. so attention to detail and being above reproach is the order of the day when it comes to original artwork in photography.
If you want to know more message me and ill send you the links to my research and provide you with more detail, but for the purposes of this discussion i think its important the people know when it comes to original artwork in photography it is all about the process and the integrity of the COA issuing authority.
hope this helps.. brian
Just throwing in my 2 cents... The ethics of selling giclees and prints is for another time. I do a little bit, but would rather sell originals.
That said...
I have my work photographed by a professional photographer who uses a large format camera with transparency film. That is scanned at the size of the original [or larger] - so any print from that image is remarkable. Yes, it is MUCH more expensive than using a digital camera, but the results are really exceptional...and you can print on canvas or paper - very large reproductions.
I have my [few] giclees made at Colorplak in southern California. They do a lot of work for Disney - and other artists. The quality of their printing and finishing is the nicest work I have ever seen. The edges of the museum wraps are sharp - and they have never cracked or faded. Before that, I used a company here in PHX who photographed my work and printed it and it looks like hammered dog poop compared to Colorplak.
As for prints, I was lucky enough to do a trade with a commercial printing company. They liked my art, we did a trade. The prints are paper are fabulous - color, quality, paper... They "cost" just a few cents! Greeting cards were much more per piece - heavier paper, folded, envelope...but still low enough to double the price and sell. If I knew I was going to do a lot of printing, that's the way to go.
Sandhi is right you do get a much better image from a scanned original. Also when you use a commercial printing company you are still getting reproductions, (this is not a term reserved for Giclee) this is what the shows want you to call them, not prints. We have a category called printmaking, calling reproductions prints is confusing to the public when there are "original prints" being offered by printmakers. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal but it is to the printmakers. Just a little professional courtesy.
My question above was actually rhetorical, the ethics is for another topic.
Thank you for all the wonderful information. I hadn't been to this site in a few months and was pleasantly surprised at all the recent activity and information passed along! Teri and Terry, loved hearing both sides of a topic that is still confusing to me as an artist.
Most of my friends that paint on oil sell only in galleries and only originals, and not very much of anything right now. The economy is bad, they are fabulous artists. Painting on canvas with oils is expensive, I know other mediums are too. But the nature of the drying time, etc really drives the cost up. You cannot produce as many finished pieces as with acrylic or watercolor. Also, I like the idea of people who cannot afford originals being able to afford a quality reproduction. I don't like art being only for people who can afford to shell out $1000+ for a painting. And it would put me out of business to paint oils and sell them below cost.
Just some thoughts.
Just signed up for their app. Thank you and good luck.
No not necessarily. Your original is your painting you apply to shows as a painter reproductions are mechanical reproductions of a finished original. Mechanical reproductions of something already made = buy/sell. Digital art and Photography have no original. That is an argument for another discussion. This discussion is about reproductions of paintings.
I can see right now you want to say "Oh people who use cameras can have multiples, it's not fair to me" well that brings us back to choosing your poison.
I see you have a printer, your pressing the button doesn't make what you produce with your printer, made by you. I'm not saying you don't have a product you can sell, it just shouldn't be at a show that requires everything be original.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next