Replies: 21 Comments
on Saturday, May 13th, ed baron said
It would seem that there is a bottom line, a clear distinction to this new angle for an old argument.
I recall when we first did Hyacinthe's editions of signed and numbered lithographs that we all walked around with a jeweler's glass.
this was to enable us to understand and see that the original stone or plate hand rendered by the artist was printed without INTERFERENCE of the image breakdowns required of any PRINTING MEDIUM.
The word for the ages of today is PIXELS. It used to be dot. DOTS determined value. Pixels now determine value or so some would have us believe.
DIFFERENCE Advantage artist. No dots, no pixels when the hand of the artist is involved. Value sacrosanct.
So the argument must be clear, very clear. What are we talking about here?
An original wrought by the artist's hand?
Copie of the original rendered through a process that requires dots or pixelation and subsequent digital manipulations?
Then what is transpiring is putting an original into a new medium. Now everytime a book publisher publishes a new edition a new ISBN is required. Even if one word is changed and the book is republished.
So the argument here seems to be as to what, or let me rephrase, what the MARKET will BEAR.
on Friday, May 12th, help@absolutearts.com">Markus Kruse said
testing ignore.
on Friday, May 12th, Lindley Karstens said
Having said all that (in the previous comment) I hope you’ll forgive me if I hold forth from my techie perspective for a tick. (I had to break this into two posts as I'm apparently too verbose to fit into a single post)
First, the idea that you can "break the digital mold" by deleting the larger original file isn't as promising as it sounds. With today's technology you can delete a large part of the information in the original image by reducing the resolution and compressing the image. True. However, given the advances of software and hardware design, it takes very little to regenerate the original file through a combination of recovery and reconstruction - to the degree that it is impossible to distinguish between the "original" and the reproduction. I suppose we then get into the question of, "Does this constitute a forgery?"
Anyhow... on to a bit about technological history and linguistic evolution.
The term "giclee" evolved, like much language, from the absence of an existing word for a new technology/tool/idea. IRIS printers were manufactured by an international company called Creoscitex (now a division of Kodak), with a primary client base in Europe. For those of you playing from home, the backstory on giclee prints is that IRIS printers were the first serious large format archival quality color printers, and their descendants are still considered the Cadillac of all color reproduction machines. But I digress. These IRIS printers quite literally sprayed, or "spit" thousands of microfine drops of ink to create the image. Giclee is simply a French word that describes how the machine works.
Thirdly, as soon as you post an image on the Internet, you've lost all hope of limiting the number of reproductions. Every single person who accesses the web page with that image (large or small) downloads a copy of the image to their computer. Some people clean up these files regularly. Some do not. Some people treat images as the intellectual property they are. Some do not. This is one of the things that makes lawyers, the FBI, and anyone else who likes to pretend they can control the world, so crazy these days. The nature of the medium compromises any efforts to maintain control of intellectual assets. Once text or images or ideas are digital, it's the work of a few seconds to distribute it anywhere... everywhere. Ah brave new world.
Fourthly, there are entire web sites dedicated to the assessment of wide-format archival quality (which translates into about 50-60 years) color printers. I can't post the links here, but if you do a search for key words like *large format color printer*... you'll call up a plethora of links.
on Friday, May 12th, Lindley Karstens said
I'm a technogeek in my day job so I’ve had occasion to work with computer graphics since 1996. Being both a technophile, and an artist, I found the allure of the digital canvas irresistible. As a result I’ve been privy to this discussion in various forms for more than a decade.
It's interesting to hear artists now debating the "pro" position (yes, a digital image can be art) in the year 2006. In 1996 the very idea made most fine artists spitting mad: using the calculations of a machine to generate something that one claimed was "art" just didn't ... well, compute. Indignation and disdain ran rampant. Geeks were geeks and art was art, and didn’t the geeks realize we needed to keep to our place? Of course that’s funny. It was funny then; but not to the “it’s NOT art” contingent.
Now that we seem to have reconciled ourselves to the idea that the graphic file itself is art, we're asking ourselves if the production of a physical image from that graphic file constitutes cheating, and whether it's a print, or a reproduction. (an interesting distinction since a print is a product of a process which can most certainly be defined as "reproduction", and one which I predict will be come as moot as the "Is it art?" question)
Okay, to save you from having to read the rest of the post, I’ll summarize my position. Yes. Computer graphics can be art. Further, I believe a print is a perfectly viable way to create art to be shared in the physical realm. The better the equipment used to create the image, the better the equipment used to create the print, and the more skillful the artist’s use of that equipment, the more refined the end product. There is no difference in kind between the improvements in the techniques used to create a paint brush, and the improvements in software and hardware. It just happens faster, and for reasons not directly related to the creation of works of art. And finally, whether you sign it, enhance it, number it, limit it, or whatever… the print still stands alone as a work of art. Fine art. Selling the print is precisely the same challenge as selling your canvases. It’s business – which is all about marketing, influence, and a bit of dumb luck.
Mind you, that’s just my .97 cents – which is not worth any more or less than everyone else’s .97 cents. Disagreement is cheerfully accepted as a valid position. You might even make me change my mind. Probably not, but you never know.
on Tuesday, May 9th, arash said
this isn't a new option. i use this process (printing digital prints on canvas) since 2001.
on Sunday, May 7th, Brad Michael Moore said
Mark,
Just break the big file and keep a small one for the record and catalogues.
Barney - you can really gush. I agree the artist should share as much as possible over the birth, growth, and setting free of their art. It's make-up, it's probable lifespan, and its reason for being created, all are normally more private matters to the artist/creator. Tee-shirt Art and posters are great for the masses - even they can now be made archival, 1 or 10,000 count. Fine art is made but for the few - even when it speaks to the many (in public places or over boob-tubes). If I am only known for one single work of art – and its original plate or digital file is destroyed – but its thumbnails still survive for the college textbooks - I'd be more than happy. That would be a greater outcome than if my only Masterpiece was purchased (or stolen), and then hidden away in some hoarder's dudgeon playroom until the next Katrina claimed it...
on Friday, May 5th, Barney Davey said
Asbjorn,
Bravo! The brilliance and simplicity of your work makes it both compelling and accessible and to a degree belies its elegant artistry. A masterful stroke of creativity and talent is required to achieve that to mind.
Prints, digital or otherwise, are just another venue for an artist’s creative output. How they are made is irrelevant. How they are portrayed when they are marketed is not irrelevant. I think it’s important for an artist to accurately represent his or her work for what it is. I recall the first time I heard the term multiple original. It made me want to hurl.
Talk about contradictions and confusion, multiple original takes the cake for being the worst and bringing out the worst of why art buyers have reason to be skeptical. In the case of my first encounter, which was in a gallery, I was viewing a beautiful oversized image of a single flower. The medium was canvas transfer with highlighting. This hardly qualified as an “original” of any sort in my mind. But the nonplussed gallery salesperson blithely explained the process in still more obfuscating terms when I asked what a “multiple original” was.
The commonly used term giclée is yet another example of creating a confusing term to offset the problem of accurately describing an artwork’s medium. I agree that highlighted canvas transfer and digital print are far less sexy sounding than multiple original and giclée, so I understand the desire to put marketing jargon on the products. But, I’m far from convinced doing so serves the art collector and the art industry in the process.
I think the best thing is to be straightforward. If you use giclée, then accurately explain what it means. Along this same line, I continue to rail against the idea of limiting digital prints. It’s a crazy marketing notion that makes no sense to me. First, most limited editions don’t sell out, so how effective is limiting them then? Second, those that do sell out mean that the artist, publisher, gallery and printer have all taken a pay cut by limiting production of the work. Third, no other form of the arts where multiples are produced artificially limits how many. Do recording acts put a cap on CD sales? Do films cut off attendance at a certain number? Do Broadway shows close down in the middle of a successful run?
Why should visual artists limit their income, especially from their most popular pieces. Certain images get legs and outsell others by the same artist in huge numbers with no apparent reason why. Perhaps one of your images might sell on for years if you allow them to be unlimited. Why take that chance?
If you want to number them then do so, just don’t put a cap on production. The lower numbers may have value for some collectors, who knows? If you want to add the artist’s shaking hand to humanize your prints, add a little hand painted detail to each one. There is so much you can do to make pieces unique without limiting them. Anyway, congrats on your work and best wishes for continued success with it!
on Friday, May 5th, Peter Togel said
We print on canvas for over a year now. Our customers love them. We also embelish some of the prints on canvas.
on Friday, May 5th, shirley babashoff said
... as I do not see any problems with printing a nice digital work on canvass, why not! I still have some reservation to call "painting" an image that has been created on a computer!
What would be the right name (the technic) for such a work
on Thursday, May 4th, shirley said
Hey,i heard about the printer from a friend of mine,who told me to check out this site. Reading about the printer and the kind of quality it has, i feel ever artist should have one.
on Thursday, May 4th, paul said
asbjorn,yes to it all,I have been using the computer for painting for years now,but havent got a big printing machine,so can only print a4 size,then get them up to a3 size and thats it,as commercial printing in colour is tres expensive,I have absolutley no quibble about using the computer as a way of working and generating images atall,its just another tool,what matters in the end is the image,not how or even what one has done it with,these are all incidentals,all that concerns us as artists is,is it a good image or not,if not we trash it, or rework it.Of course the other consideration is whatever and however one is working are the buggers buying our junk,otherewise,it dont matter what kind of fancy equipment weve got or not.Good on you Asbjorn for raising a good subject.
on Thursday, May 4th, walt said
There is a simple solution to this issue of uniqueness in the realm of digital prints. When that single unique print has been accomplished make a small file as an archive and destroy the original file. That way the image is archived and can be reprinted only as say a post card, catalog copy etc. By destroying the larger file you guarantee that someone must make the effort to preserve that one print. That is truly the only basis for the value of art, it's uniqueness...anything less devalues it. Imagine who would really make the effort to care for a supposed unique image if one could reprint it if it were destroyed. Once the idea of digital printing becomes status quo there will no longer be any incentive to preserve it unless artists make the hard call to protect the uniqueness from the very start. Think about it. Many plates are struck that could still make a number of prints. It takes some courage to say only 10 or only 25 and no more.
on Thursday, May 4th, tuksum@yahoo.com">Todd said
I am just adding to my question that I am looking for a digital printing machine/press that allows you to print on canvas and other cloth.
if anybody can give me info on where I could find those, I would be greatful
here's my email
tuksum@yahoo.com">tuksum@yahoo.com
todd
on Thursday, May 4th, Todd said
I would like to get info on digital printing machines of the same class as the one Asbjorn Lonvig has used to print the Cathedral.
Any info of on brands and place where they manifacture the dig. machines or webstes would be helpful.
Thanks
todd
on Thursday, May 4th, studiosughi@albertosughi.com">shirley babashoff said
if I found a digital work I really like, and I had a chance to print it on canvass I wouldnt hesitate a second to do so.
Should I?
on Thursday, May 4th, Mark R Brockman said
Brad, I agree that if a computer print is a "one of a Kind" it stands on it own as an original piece, and should be treated as such. In that case would you destroy the ability to print more of the same image as one does a plate or stone so no more images can be printed (except an image for your records). Buyers seldom know the difference between a print and a reproduction and hence often think they are purchasing an investment when in fact they usually are not. I do not work with a computer to create art, and I am not questioning its validity, it is another medium to be used, and is as valid as oil or any medium. How tempting though, if one gets great reviews on a piece and is tempted to print multible images when the intent is to do only one. I have had a painting that I could have sold a dozen times, but alas that is not possible without reproductions and at this time I do not wish to do any reproductions. I don't think this warrents a controvery, but as with any new medium I do think questiopns should be asked.
on Thursday, May 4th, jose freitas cruz said
I agree with this idea of the uniqueness of the print - if we don't use the process to mass produce our work we don't run the risk of devaluating it. But there is another aspect I think must be looked into: new technologies get us high on the possibilities they make available to us but very often we get carried away by the quick and easy results our computers can generate with the info we feed into them: there is a danger of becoming 'trigger happy'. I have come across some challenging and well rendered prints but personally I still prefer the tactile quality of the media on the surface and the physical battle that we go through to extract the image.
on Wednesday, May 3rd, Brad Michael Moore said
Mark, I've asked similar questions of myself, and other artists I've found in the same boat - can a digital "print" be a unique print, or is it just a reproduction?" The answer I can offer here is this: Artists can make their digital prints unique in a simple process as uncomplicated as the word - unique. They create their work of art, choose their substrate and ink set - then they make one perfect print. It will be the only print of their creation they'll ever do to offer up to the world. This makes their art's value a “One-of-a-kind value,” so the materials the work is comprised of become less important. You have the one artwork - the same as if it were an original oil on canvas. Then it's up to the art world to determine the significance of the artist’s creation... I'm not sure why one would worry that printing digitally on canvas might be controversial – it’s a non-issue. Canvas is just another substrate that is printable - the same as glass, fiberboard, animal hide etc... If you print it two hundred or ten times – the first print is as valuable as the last. If you print your work of art one time, and one time only – it becomes a unique, more marketable artwork. Once it has been purchased – other collectors will have to wait for the artist to come up with their next piece – and hope it also holds the allure of that last one that got away… As for the artist – they only have to believe in their art one work at a time - then turn the page…
on Wednesday, May 3rd, olga said
Yes...due to this great news in technology artists could get even more starving then before. You may find a lot of cheap great looking Chinese prints on canvas in many places in USA. So ...artists can count only on real relatively reach art lovers.
on Wednesday, May 3rd, stillxxlife@gmail.com">Rii said
You don't say what type of printer it is that you have... I would be interested to know so that I can learn more about it.
on Wednesday, May 3rd, Mark R Brockman said
I think any tool to create a work of art is a valid thing. How one creates, with what one creates, is not so important as to what they create. I have one question. There is a difference between a "PRINT" and a REPRODUCTION. A print is from a plate, stone wood, something the aritist actually worked, a reproduction is taken from an image produced seperate from the "print/reproduction" process. Each print though taken from the same plate is different then all the others, even by just a little. Making art digitaly, makes each "print" just like all the others, such as a reproduction does. So finally here is my question, is a digital "print" a print or repoduction? I know it seems like splitting hairs but I do feel that it is an important distinction.
On this huge printer I can print in nearly any size.
One day I printed the motif "1 Cathedral Square" on canvas.
This tiny close up photo of the print on canvas tells the whole story.
