Antique prints were done by the artist -- the advent of having a printing company copy an original is a modern marketing device. I would not call antique prints mass produced or manufactured. Apparantly I'm still not clear enough -- these modern commercial "fine art" prints are scanned by a computer to make photographic plates either to produced silkscreen negatives or to to run a computer controlled spray production
printing machine. Machine! The artist has little to no involvement in the production of the end product. The end product is marketed up 8 to 10 times and more at the retail level. Perhaps in a hundred years when some of this art is actually antique (if it hasn't faded to the point of being worthless as vegetable dyes are used in a lot of the processes) some of it will be worth something. There is such a glut of these "graphics" (a print term reserved for fine art prints actually made by an artist) on the market over the past twenty years and so many artists copying one another's style that it will be regarded by future appraisers as the same decorator art it is today and won't hold a great deal of value.
What I'm referring to here could easily be called "disposable art."
Antique prints , even "mass produced" ones like the elephant folios of Audubon, are intrinsically interesting because Audubon had hand painted the prints after they were produced . He, and a small group pf other artists painted the pulled prints before they were bound into the volumes. That "artist involvement" has been responsible for the strong market for these wildlife prints.
Ive found, based on my personal journey after being enlightened from previous discussions with the wiz , that many modern wildlife prints have a contracted value established by the house.Of the original suggested retail (and wholesale prices to the print shops) Many of the editions go unsold and thenthey get sent back and are jobbed out on consignment or they are deeply discounted . Then, after a few years, a truer mar ket value establishes itself at a number much less than the original retail. Ive seen a number of Bateman prints go from a suggested retail; value , d
own to a "after market value on eBay" at a value less than 1/3 of original retail.
Now, Im not sure about the scientific evidence of the color fastness of the inks. I used to do a lot of aquatints and all my inks were nasty solvent laden, petroleum and aniline based. the veggie inks have been taking over since only about mid eighties, so theres not a lot of time yet .
Whether or not we smugly dismiss Kinkaid in this thread,Kinkaid has a following , the fact of which reinforces William Claude Dukenfields proposition. So, if he is an example, how can we dismiss "Fine art prints" as a force in the market today. Most people buy art to go with their furniture anyway.
farmerman is very wise and hath spoken the truth.
Is farmerman two headed or perhaps a split personality?
I had some of the Audobon prints in the late 60's at a gallery in San Juan Capistrano as well as other botanical and nature artist's work. I've long since forgotten the artist's I personally had in my collection as my house was then filled with a lot of antique prints (we got quite a bargain from a gallery in La Jolla which was going out of business). I still have two antique prints from that collection. I would not be able to call any of it manufactured or mass produced by any means. Even though some limited editions are in numbers less than 300, it's the fact that the technology has made the process so inexpensive and that the artist has a tendency to paint for an audience and consistently repeat the same imagery over and over ad nauseum. I'm just not going to menion the name of the worst offender again (I know, I've said that before but
I do like to get the word out to warn people). The artists even start copying one another and soon, if they are popular, can't keep up with the demand and begin hiring artists to paint their work. Ghost painters or elves, or whatever you want to call them, they are proteges to an extent but the intent is to fool the buying public into thinking they are buying something created by the signator.
From People magazine article"Trouble"....10 owners
of Kinkade galleries claim that "Kinkade and
his publicly owned company Media Arts Group defrauded them by saturating the market with galleries and unloading inventory on discount chains. The chains then sold the artwork for far less than the galleries were obliged to charge. "
....Media Arts Group spokesman counters that
those unhappy dealers are the rare exceptions among the nation's
300 Kinkade Gallery owners. "The vast majority
are happy and prosperous," he says.
Shepaints
Shepaints, I think Kincaid's commercialism is among the worst I've seen recently.
I hope you've discovered that we have a lot of A2Kers who are interested in and involved in the Arts, and that you are having a good time posting here.
Welcome to A2K.
---BumbleBeeBoogie
Thanks BBB! I was here for a while a few months ago 'till my browser stopped allowing me access....but
now I am baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!
Shepaints
Shepaints, soooooooooooo glaaaaaaaaaaaaaad your browser is fixed and you are baaaaaaaaaaaaack
---BumbleBeeBoogie
....I would be interested to hear more about
gallery owners who manage to make names out of their prodigies......If my memory is correct there is a British gallery owner, named Saatchi, who I believe discovered Damian Hirst.....The rest is history....the Tate...etc......
I'd like to make just a few comments about original art and prints.
For many years I resisted the idea of making prints from my original images. Somehow the idea of prints seemed something less, something somehow inferior to the original. I understood the economics of prints to the art world/market, but since most of my income came from other sources I didn't really need to "sully" my hands with knockoffs. Producing prints was also expensive only a few years ago. Producing high quality prints was somewhat difficult, and to get the cost down you hand to order pretty large printings. Large supply, low prices and the profit was pretty small unless you sold a whole bunch of prints. Selling large numbers of prints was just as difficult as finding buyers of the originals, and both required too much time and effort.
For a long time my production was pretty small, and there were enough folks who knew my work to make the need of galleries of low importance to me. I painted what I liked, when I liked and basically sold, or gave away, my pictures to a reasonably small group of folks who liked my stuff. Since I've retired, I have more time available and my production has begun to get out of hand. So far this year I've painted something like fifteen, or more paintings. I've been exhibiting in shows both locally and out of state. Many of the pictures can be seen right here on A2K, though, because of our rules here, I can't make any overt effort to sell my work. My studio is getting stacked up with paintings, and I need to get rid of them and have some cash flow to pay for the materials I use and the frames needed to "finish" pictures off. I'm starting to really need gallery representation. I need a "singer", an agent to flack my pictures around so that I have time to continue producing paintings.
Among the older pieces I still own is a small ink drawing titled "Frenrear". People who see this little picture almost invariably want to buy it. Natalie won't sell, but the picture is probably worth seven or eight hundred dollars (est. based on the best auction price paid for one of my drawings). Now if I make a limited edition of prints, the same size and quality of the original I can sell them for a much lower price. Say the print run stays at 250 signed copies, matted but unframed. Lets say they sell for $50/ea. That is $12,500 gross. Production costs might be around $1250, and the retailers will take as much as $6250. $2500 less the overhead still leaves me with a profit of $5000 on a single drawing. I still retain the drawing, and its value is enhanced because now the image is well known and has a proven track record. Now my original is worth perhaps as much as $1,500. That's about what I price my paintings at, and the paintings can be handled the same way and because they are in color, they may even sell better as prints with prices ranging upward of $100/each. The return on selling prints of work that you slave over for days, weeks, or even months is something that no artist can completely avoid if they want to make a living at their craft.
Today I saw a fine large painting that a young painter must have spent three months working on. It wasn't for sale, but the artist has been selling framed and unframed prints for $250 and $125 respectively. The prints he's selling is the kid's principle income, and he's doing pretty good all things considered.
There are a lot of folks out there who would like to own fine art, but they just can not afford to pay the sort of prices an artist has to charge for good sized, high quality paintings. A 24X36 oil painting takes something like 32 hours at the easel, and that doesn't count surface prep time or drying time. At that rate, the upper limit of paintings in a year is 65, but creating art isn't that mechanical and the number is probably at best only half that number. Let's say my hourly rate as a painter is a mere $15/hr. At that rate each of the 32 paintings painting has to sell for at least $480 to render me an uncertain $15,360/year. Expect that the gallery will take as much as half the sales price, and the suggested retail has to be round $1000. However, there is a good chance that not all of the paintings will sell within a year, so the return might be significantly less. Getting paintings into galleries takes time, effort and some expense. Those costs plus the cost of materials (canvas and frames can be ruinously expensive) still have to be deducted. Bottom line an artist can work themselves silly and make less money than a shoe clerk.
Prints can make a significant difference. The originals may render $15,360/yr alone, but by offering limited edition prints the potential income, from nearly the same amount of work, might be ten times as much. $153,360/yr. is a much better potential gross than $15,360. Even on a "bad" year for sales an artist has at least a chance of making a decent income from work that requires a great deal of skill and creativity.
I need gallery representation, and I need to have prints of my major works available.
Good comments about how to actually go about making a lilving from art Asherman. I was once
exhibiting in the Toronto Outdoor Art Exhibition .
Several times I was asked if I had prints of my paintings. The enquiries were from people who did not ask the price of the painting.
My lament is that printmaking is a very paintstaking discipline of the fine arts resulting in hand made, artist generated prints. I lament the way the term print thrown about so loosely.
I also believe while "prints" make "art" more accessible they also take away from the enormous impact of the original work. We have been visually over-saturated with Monet's images for example. Does it make one appreciate his original painting more or less?
The sort of prints I was refering to are photo/digital renderings on high-quality archival paper/canvas. In the grand scheme of things, these aren't exactly what many people mean when talking about fine art prints. Never the less, there is a market for them and they can generate enough revenue to support the creation of those originals that we prize so highly. You get a choice, maintain your artistic integrity and starve to death, or compromise by selling photo/digital prints of the originals and at least break-even.
Ultimately, the work has to be in the markets where art minded people with disposable income are ready, willing and able to buy. A studio filled with masterpieces is small consolation for being buried in Potter's Field. to work with galleries is itself making a deal with the devil. They promise much, take a huge chunk of the profits and can be pretty demanding about what you paint for sale through their outlet. To get into galleries with good sales records is not easy. Artists are lined up around the block trying to get their work into galleries that draw monied collectors. Just trying to get into those galleries, and then keeping them supplied and happy can consume the lion's share of those hours and resources we have available each year to paint.
Fair type situations also gobble up time, and frankly it seems like most of the "venders" make only a marginal return for the investment. Trying to sell pictures in a situation where you are competing with a hundred other hungry people for the few dollars carried in the pockets of Sunday excursionists isn't very promising. Juried exhibitions may be somewhat better, at least they tend to draw folks who have a clear interest in seeing paintings. Personally I haven't sold a thing out of an exhibition to date, but I'll keep showing to build reputation.
Hanging pictures in restaurants may satisfy some inner need to get the paintings looked at, but have you EVER heard of anyone leaving a restaurant with a doggy-bag and a painting? The prices that you can charge in that venue are so small that you might as well give the pictures away.
ebay has a similar problem, the prices are so low for original art that it is virtual theft of the artists work. However, I think that a well constructed website might actually generate enough revenue to justify the costs. I doubt many serious collectors with serious cash buy their paintings on the internet. That forces prices down, and emphasizes the importance of having inexpensive, but high quality photo/digital images available for the general market.
Asherman, You can, if you wish, have limited Giclee prints turned out in a number of shops tat specialize in this. You must be there to direct the colr hues, values, and saturation. But the cost of a run of 35 prints will be much less than a full run of Photoliths. However, when I did giclees, I sold them for considerably less than 150$. Giclees used to make a difference between a good show and a great show but I never count on them , and as Im understanding more of wiz' wizdom, i would never ever get photoliths done . I know too many artists whove spent 3000 on a full run of "posters" that they hand sign and "number" when there is really no meaning to the number .
If you can do aquatint or etching, youre doing real printing, and its your work from idea to final product.
I bought a Robert Bateman print for my office over vacation and I have paid some high prices for his prints. This was one of his more famous bear prints that I got for under 100$ (suggested Acorn Press value 800$-) meaning that the print values are overinflated .
I have had many unsolicited emails on the subject
of Giclee prints. I thought it was kinda like
self-publishing.....You pony up the money and
hope that you can find great locations to market them and make a profit on your investment.
SHEPAINTS Yeh giclees are just fancy laser prints. I would sign and mat them and sell for 25 to 35 bucks. And if I had a really good picture that the public liked. I did a set of frogs (3 , in a triptych) and sold the set for 60 bucks. I sold out but never sold trhe original. Go figure. (course i was asking 450 a piece for the originals)
I had a set of 35 of each frog and everyb ody wanted all 3 cuz it was my idea so it was a great show because I sold a number of single originals.
art
THIS IS VERY EDIFYING, FOLKS. THANKS.
Man, my dad and my step-mom have a couple of Kinkaid paintings in their house...they think they're great. I'm not a huge art guy, but I know he's nothing special, and how his "paintings" are usually done by someone else. I wouldn't hang that stuff up in mi casa.
Even though he's dead, Dali's stuff is all over...even mixed in with posters at generic stores at the mall.
And I started thinking along the lines as Cav...musicians who are huge into marketing. P-Diddy, Jay-Z, those guys make a killing in so many more ways than just record sales. Clothing lines, producing, record labels, ect. Even if you don't like that kind of music, someone who makes 50 million a year is doing something right.
And saying musicians call themselves artists to associate themselves with a higher culture? How many people who can't paint for sh!t do so just to call themselves "artists?" Or people who act all high and mighty about talking about "art" just to come across as cultured?
I think musicians have the same right to call themselves artists.
Artists who get published by a major art publisher end up seeing the prints selling for more like $750.00 (even for a giclee) and they make no more than the $10.00 each for signing the edition. If enough of the edition sells, they do get some royalties and most publishers may a monthly amount for keeping the artist under contract.
If you're having giclees made, there's an initial scanning and set up charge with one or two proofs, usually around $250.00 to $400.00. After that, it is per square inch and the final cost depends on whether you are having them printed on canvas or archival paper. On canvas, you have the additional cost of stretching. Then if you want to to a remarque (the French designation for enhancing the print), that cost has to be figured in.
Rarely do the publishers or retail galleries relinquish information about how the print is made and I suppose many people believe the artist produced the print. I believe it is better to be honest and let the client know it is a reproduction. As to edition size, less than 350 is the usual recommendation by professionals. With the giclee process, you only have to order as you need prints -- the digital information to run a print is on a disc which is destroyed after the edition is complete. There's always the option of printing the entire edition at one time which also reduces the cost from the printer.
