Unfortunatly, I believe the motivation is for decorator art that has colors which fit into their decor. quote LWS
sadly, i agree. There is a lot of shallow, decorative stuff being produced - and some superb stuff.
art
No doubt, LW, that if the collectors buy abstract art and it thus becomes fashionable there will be a market increase for it. But this does not mean, of course, a genuine appreciation for abstract art. In some cases, yes. But very frankly I do paint more for other artists than for anyone else. As I said before somewhere, they are best prepared to appreciate my successes and my failures. If one is not prepared, has not developed the sensibilities and taste for good design and painterly expression, there is not much to be expected of them. The same applies to art music. I just finished reading Julian Spadling's The Eclipse of Art. Very interesting. He suggests (if I understood him rightly) that the art that will shine forth after the present eclipse passes will most likely appeal to both the popular and cultivated tastes. That is very optimistic. I certain hope that art will not pander. I don't want to sound like the "elitist" but it can't be denied that the most profound pleasures of life do require preparation and self-cultivation. It doesn't come free.
jln - I agree with you again - i had a really nice compliment at my show on Sunday when i was told that i was a painters painter like a musicians musician.
Walking on air!!!!
art
A wonderful compliment, indeed. Congratulations.
It's the American people's yen for something pretty. Pretty girl, pretty boy, pretty art, pretty awful.
not just the Americans either LW
We have a perponderance of junk art in this country -- it all has one thing in common. It's sentimental, picture post card imagery which really has nothing more to say than a piece of crockery. This is no really successful markting of this art in any other place on Earth. For a brief time, Japan was a big consumer of this superficial commercial art and to be fair some of it is above the level of motel room decor. It's the expendable income that gets spent on ill advised art purchases that does little more than make one temporarily comfortable. I realize that we aren't the only ones in the world with bad taste but we certainly could take home to booby prize for the nation who loves mediocrity.
That's better than buying some half-baked illustrator's work -- honest reproductions that are meant as wall decor make more sense than investing $1000.00 (or more) in a look alike Monet.
Of course, I would advise anyone to go out and search for originals by new artists but the public wants someone who's being promoted, much like the Pet Rock.
BTW, if one wants an original from a reputable commercial gallery whose proprietors and/or director knows good art from bad, they can expect to pay $2,000. to $5000. for a decent sized work. Many people can't afford it but they talk themselves into buying some worthless limited edition for $995.00 (framed, and custom framing can be about half of the cost).
LW all so sadly true.
Is there a rise in the sale of Giclee prints there? Here everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon of having lightfast prints made of their work and selling the prints - for as you say a lot of money when you add on the framing costs. so much better to buy and original work.
The original equipment cost for producting a giclee is pretty heavy although it has come down in recent years. The studios producing these prints have all raised their prices because there is still a lot of fine tuning done by the eye to produce a faithful print from the original. Yes, they've been tested for UV exposure but not for what happens to the dyes from just aging. Some dyes can change color, most notably a color can begin loosing the red pigment, thus the famous incident of the Mark Rothko's at Harvard University Library. He was so late on the commission, he went down to the paint store and bought some common house paint. The canvasses were a beautiful cerise. They've all changed to a blue/purple.
Like I said, disposable art because if it's left in an estate, no telling what it's going to look like in a hundred years. Everyone is encouraged to do a museum mount which is part of the expense of custom framing and includes fitting the print into the frame with all acid free materials (100% cotton or other buffered material). Gone are the days of the brown corrugated on the back of a conservation custom frame product. In my experience a print by a new artist is priced at no less than 25% of the cost of the original. If one can afford it, they should obviously shun the print and buy an original. On the other hand, commercially popular artist like Eyvind Earle command ten to twenty times the price of a print and the prints are expensive. The publishing companies are banking on the old supply and demand criteria for pricing their product. Most of the time, this doesn't hold up in the marketplace and all of a sudden the inventories are glutted with older prints which are virtually unsalable at their original price. There are now millions of these manufactured limited edition prints out there and it could be called a house of cards because the market has collapsed three times in the last three decades. Sound like the stock market? One is kind of investing in the stock of the artist when they buy a limited edition print. If they buy early enough, they have a chance to see some appreciation. Doesn't happen often enough where an artist can break that five year barrier of collectibility. Sometimes the artist begins producing new prints, perhaps in a new method and it makes the old prints take on less value because these artists have long ago started repeating their imagery ad nauseum. In my opinion, they consciously or sub-consciously (doubtful!) begin painting for the public, giving them what they want. A carbon copy of a print that's no longer available.
BTW, not that the original painting will appreciate either. The gallery I work for now has a large inventory of the work of Tito Tarrago, purchased from his former publisher -- paintings that were sold along with remarque giclee prints on canvas and now priced at less than half the price. He's actually a good modern impressionist but I doubt he will ever break the five year barrier.
My framer has turned half the business over to producing giclee prints - he started off with an A3 machine and now has a huge industrial one and an enormous scanner. The gallery is now given over totally to these reproduction prints.
I get a bit cross to hear them described as 'artists prints' - that should only cover etching/lithography etc don't you think?
It's a method of reproduction, not generally for producing original works. Their print's of artist's work, unless the artist is in full command of the process like Robert Rauschenburg who is using it for his graphic output. A master printer is indeed an artist but if he is merely reproducing some other artist's work, he's a printer.
yes. I produce digital images that are created using the computer - they don't exist in any other form - these i would call artists prints (and do!) and limit the editions as for etchings etc.
The trouble is all the repros floating about kind of blur the distinctions.
Rodney Allan Greenblatt, the New York pop cartoon artist who is in the History of Modern Art textbook, produced some of the first prints that were totally computer generated in 1989(I have one of them). David Hockney has also produced art by computer and photo mechanical means. The buying public does not realize totally that the artist is not particularly involved with the production of limited edition prints of their originals until they sign the edition. There may or may not be trial proofs and the artists proofs are seldom produced first (the same goes for a serigraph or even a hand produced lithograph which is a reproduction of a painting). As the process is so tightly controlled, the first prints are no different than the final prints. None of this would mean anything if until the prints are placed on the market at over-inflated prices and sold by salespeople who commit the sin of omission in informing the buyer just how they are produced.
Yes a collector who bought a couple of my digital images from a show wanted the proofs - I explained that they were no different but he still wanted the proofs - i charged him the same price as the limited edition.
I don't know that I wouldn't charge more for the artist's proofs -- if there is a BAT (the single print which is used as the comparison for the rest of the edition), I don't know if I would ever sell that. Where the artist proof gets obscured as to value is in a studio produced limited edition print where the artist did not create any of the plates. Your plate is the computer program. Greenblatt puts a hole through the disc after an edition is completed so that he can write on the certificate how the "plates" were destroyed.
that sounds like a good idea - destroying the discs.
yes i do notice the sentimentality. Each nation has its weird bits of bad taste though!
