Replies: 21 Comments
on Sunday, April 13th, walt said
Perhaps with digital imaging one’s personal values and ethics become much more important. So your point is well taken. Hence the importance to choose the right vocabulary to describe it.
You see Brad, this is the problem with firsts and limits…first pitch, first date, first kiss, first edition, first in a series, first child to open the womb, first Lady, first among equals, the first is not always the original…but often one upon which much status is granted. That we put such emphasis on these first things is passing strange for true. IN the case of printmaking the first was inherently the most crisp and perfect version…In the case of digital work the file is itself the original…the first in importance, the key, the master… it is a different way of thinking altogether. There is no analog to reference. No negative image which one must convert to positive image, no drawing on paper scanned. No painting. I even have a hard time calling digital painting a form of painting at all. It uses no paint. How can it be a painting? No paint is used. Paint, that moist mud like substance. I have a hard time calling a pastel a painting. Too dry. A coloring perhaps. Why can’t coloring become the larger term for things using color which are not moist and mud like. This new tool calls for new terms because the meaning has changed. All the old meanings no longer apply. I don’t say it isn’t a painting because I denigrate the tool…but because the tool has changed everything ...because the color is not moist and mud like. How many words for snow do Eskimos have?
Photography can still be called photography because the lens still collects photons in one way or another. Perhaps we will eventually do away with paper and the graphy part will need changing. But for now the word still works.
The original is the file since there is no intermediate step. Everything else is either a reproduction of the file or a translation of the file in which the original image is modified in some way.
The term edition still works. I have no problem with it. As I mentioned earlier it comes from the publishing world to which all of this discussion properly belongs. To print a number of images at a time is in fact an edition. Could you print a limited number? Yes. But the nature of the beast is that one can go on ad infinitum. There was a natural limit to the old primitive plates that gave natural value. With digital processes we are trying to apply natural value to a synthetic process. It doesn’t really work that way. But there must be a natural value somewhere in the mix because by appropriating the older term to a process without the natural limitation we destabilize the language at some future place in time. So what are the natural limitations in digital printing? How can we find something that is a negative value and convert it into a positive value just as the primitive printing process took a limited number of copies and converted it into a positive marketing tool.
So I don't have a problem with the first pitch...but I don't wear the glove so it's not really my game to win or lose. But all the same I do seem to have a bet on the game.
on Saturday, April 12th, Brad Michael Moore said
Thanks Barney, for the blog. It is a new frontier - once again.
--
Walt,
Are you trying to push me into doing something I might likely need to do - if no one else will? That's a grave responsibility... Of course, now that the challenge is out, who knows? I have forever found that an odd dare, I see as most impossible - someway, constantly changes after I keep it in mind, and continue to sleep on the thought for a while. So, I will sleep on this a spell too... History says, each spring, someone, who holds the desire - but is less certain if they can get it over the plate – will always still volunteer to throw out the first pitch...
on Thursday, April 10th, Barney Davey said
I am glad to see so many opinions coming out on this piece. I wrote it, in part, because there are so many permutations of 2D art being created today. At the same time, the convergence of photography, digital art and conventional art marches on despite all manner of folks clinging to vestiges of the past.
Yes, we are trudging forward dragging the past with us, which was far from perfect. I see opportunity for how art is made and distributed in the future. Sure, painters will still use brush and paint and make works for us all to marvel, but some others will take up a digital brush and open up new possibilities for themselves.
Meanwhile, the means for creating reproductions gets better and less expensive. Developments like digital art and digital printing create new markets and disturb old ones. We are in the middle of such technological advances and market disturbances. One could wish for a benign dictatorship to steward the changes and institute standards we can all live with, but that is not going to happen. Instead, we each have to decide how to embrace changes and what is the best course of action to take regarding how we make and market new forms of art and reproductions.
Forums such as this one here on AA give us a chance to discuss ideas and challenge each other's preconceptions about how things are going and how they ought to be done. Truly, we do have the curse of living in interesting times and in some cases reasons for cursing living in interesting times.
on Wednesday, April 9th, walt said
your word is good Brad...in your lifetime...then what? Even a thumb print can be faked. I saw it on CSI last week.
on Tuesday, April 8th, walt said
Brad, I'll believe you in a heartbeat...it's all those other folks I know who are less than honest and they seem to be coming out of the woodwork in droves, yes even hives of them these days, just buzzin around.
On the other hand, you are the guy to come up with a better language than the one used for a more ancient technology...back when stamping ink into paper was considered hightech and modern...now ancient...maybe instead of limited edition you could call it digital perfection or limited inflection or some such...but the limit is still not needed. There may be a limit in how many will sell...period... at the finished stage of it. Maybe you mail out a statement when you've done the last one to each of the owners and say "it is finished. I made 50 of them or a hundred or 27 just 3 of them before I gave up or gave out."
Ok, my model has been on break for 10 minutes...time to get back in the classroom and get them started again. Drawing class you know.
on Tuesday, April 8th, Brad Michael Moore said
Mark,
I guess I would have to say never buy my work from anyone but me - since my reputation isn't so great anyway - you'd not make much selling it to another collector - so - when you get tired of it - I'll buy it back from you - this way all owners of my work can say, "this is an original, alrighty - even the artist wants to buy it back from me - haha. Maybe I'll just make this a contractual rule of all my works I sell. I can stamp on the back - this image was sold to Mark - if Mark died, or sold it - or it got stolen - this image is now a fraud and worthless...
Walt,
I'm thinking about digital art that never knew a negative - made from digital scratch - digital soup I sometimes say. I've been thinking about limited editions since Barney wrote this piece and stirred up a mess of all those missing honey bees we've been hearing about. If my creation is from cyberspace - then the first print I make is the 'Original Print." The only way you're going to get an original, 'Limited Edition,' out of me is to order it - and I'll print the whole schbang all together - signed and numbered. Original Digital Soup - spray painted, lacquered, and dried - cannot be reconstituted because I put my thumb prints in the goo before it dries. Even painters have done that with some success! I don't see the difference between Weston and Adams' physical negatives and my digital .tiffs but for a 3rd party color profile. They could break their plates - burn their negatives - I can erase my .tiff files. Sure, a collector must depend upon my word - but isn't that the point of being an artist - to be trusted at least with one's own work - especially after nearly 40 years of a track record? If I were a lier about the originality of my work - wouldn't that be she itz - doesn't a lifetime amount to anything?
on Monday, April 7th, walt said
Brad,
the difference is that Weston and Adams had a physical negative. There was a time when some photographers would destroy the neg keeping only a few proofing prints as an archive. This made their editions limited. If that negative disappeared then there would be no more original prints. And while a negative can be duplicated it looses in the process. Every generation of duplication looses definition and detail in the physical/analog process. Hence the dependence on the 'original' neg or plate. The term original was not meant as a sleazy marketing tool but to guarantee the quality of the print. Sorry but I'm afraid that digital art was designed to be a "cheap" alternative to making physical art so big corporations could save money*. Even the files can be duplicated ad infinitem with little or no loss of information. Only the idea of the image is original.
Digital work has to define its own existence. It can't use the term original since original refers primarily to physical and analog process.
Brad maybe you're the guy to come up with the new terminology! In this new generation of art buyers who are really quite saavy about digital technology why lie? Tell em its a digital reproduction of the highest quality. Tell em its the quality of the printer, the opacity of the inks and the fact that the artist did all the color specs to guarantee accuracy to the original file image. Invent a new term that says all that to a generation who knows the quality of the systems used. But for gods sake lets quit using terms that don't work anymore...terms that have been so divorced from their original meaning as to have no meaning whatsoever.
*As it turns out it has become not only the bain of big corporations in that it empowers little corporations and creators (yeah!) but it also turned a lot of secretaries into terrible little graphic designers and copyright infringers (boo!) thereby lowering the bar so really bad work is now acceptable... and it has opened the door for this new change in copyright law that is darkening our artistic horizens...the orphan works bill.
But it also ruined the field for really good designers trying to get started in the business by bringing the monetary value of design down.
on Monday, April 7th, Mark said
Brad, good point. I think tho that working as you describe is much like working on a plate, or stone, etc. The difference would then be if you made a copy from one of the 'prints' not directly from, say your disk. But as a limited edition, in your case the buyer would have to rely on the artist's honesty, as one can not rely on the deteriation of the original material from where the image was pulled from, to ensure the limited quantity. But then I do not think much of this limited edition thing anyway as most 'limited prints' (except from very famous artists) do not realy increase in worth over time. Just go to ebay and see how many well known artist's 'limited prints' are selling for less then what the seller originaly paid.
on Monday, April 7th, Brad Michael Moore said
So, if your a digital artist - creating your art from scratch - with no other means of producing a print of your work except with a Giclee (Inkjet printer) - how can anyone, but an elitist, say your print is a reproduction? It's the same as if it came from an negative and was processed into an original print - the same as Ansel Adams once did it. If the artist/owner says it is an original - or one of a set of a limited 1st prints, and signs it, and numbers it that way - how is this any different now than from the days of Weston, Adams, and Stieglitz 100 years ago? Personally, I would never sell rights to any of my images for any use. You buy a print from me - you can hang it where you wish - but you can't reproduce it. I agree with Ellen over the original quality of our work - I don't sell prints already printed. If you want a work of mine - we have to come to an understanding - then I print your image from my digital file. Hell, when I retire - I may just destroy all my digital files anyways - and burn my negatives. The only prints around of mine will have my original signature - as valuable or valueless as that may be...
on Saturday, April 5th, walt said
Donna, what about the site you're on now? There are a number of wonderful artists on absolutearts.com and any number of web site listings that exist today. Many of us are on multiple sites. In fact there is such an abundance of artists who can be found that I wonder why Congress feels the need to rewrite the copyright law with the orphan works bill currently going through committees.
on Saturday, April 5th, Donna Emperador said
I agree with Otto that there are many original art works out there by lesser or unknown artists that are beautiful and can be bought for an affordable price. A great place to seek out some originals is a non profit website called Saatchi Online.
on Saturday, April 5th, Chimbles said
Art is not about making money of. If it boils down to it, you will bring in many crooks and imitators, just like any other business. As for getting ripped off yourself... well you can't wait for everyone else, sometimes have to step in and get the ball rolling, unless it's not that important to begin with. Good Luck!
on Friday, April 4th, Mark said
Jon, you (we) need to make the distingtion between prints and reproductions. True prints are original work and not in the same catagory as reproductions (see posts below). When artists do not use the correct terminology how can we expect the public to do so? Not trying to be picky here, it is just that I think it an important point.
on Friday, April 4th, Ellen said
As an artist, realizing that the only affordable way for me to sell reproductions of my work is in giclee form, I enhance each "copy" so that, in some way it's not simply a printed piece of paper or canvas. When I sell the giclees, I inform the client that I have reworked the print personally. It takes some time and effort, but on the up side, this allows me to make some works better (always finding mistakes when looking back!). Photography is another matter and I limit those to very small or open editions.
Ripping off artists' work by reproducing it and selling it without the artist's consent/knowledge is simply stealing.
on Thursday, April 3rd, Jon said
Prints are worthless garbage. They are for people who can't afford paintings or who don't know any better. They belong in magazines or coffee table books. Nothing will ever or can ever, replace an original painting. Prints, Wal-mart, and bowling, all the same. If anyone you know ever tells you they are going to buy a print, stop them, and tell them to go dpwn to their local artist borough and buy an original painting for probably less money!
on Thursday, April 3rd, Otto Rapp said
I agree fully with Mark. Nothing wrong with giclee prints, as long as they are labeled reproductions and not prints. Limited editions in that medium are impossible to do honestly, since one can always take another scan from the original painting or drawing. In traditional printmaking, there is no original, rather, each print is a numbered original, pulled from the plate the artist had worked by hand (as in etching). Properly done, once the edition is closed, a cancellation print (defaced plate) is put on file with the publisher.
IMHO giclees or photo-lithos should not be sold as limited editions.
Cheers
Otto
on Thursday, April 3rd, alicew96 said
Legal and audit actions are costly for the artists and these publishers know it, particularly if they don't respond.
There's absolutely no way to know how often or how many they are reprinting and in how many sizes. And then there's whatever happens in European sales. This is true both in publishing AND music industries. There are some top notch music producers who no longer work for royalties. Fees only.
My best hope is that their yachts sink.
on Thursday, April 3rd, Mark said
I guess stealing ones work is a great compliment. I guess.
Not to repeat Walt but there is a defined difference between a print and reproduction. Print being made by the artist's hand from stone, plate, wood, or other material that degrades in time, this limits the number of prints. In the offset proccess the plate can and does deteriate, but slowly, of course the plate can be destroyed, but this and the giclees are not prints but reproductions. As for limited editions, they are a joke and mean nothing. Limited to what? One hundred, five hundred, one million, even one million is limited. I do not have an issue with reproductions, I have often thought of doing them myself, but other then the one I did nearly fifteen years ago I have not. But my only reproduction does come in handy to drawings on the back.
As for the low-down, dirty, nasty no good crooks spoken of here, well they are nothing new. There should be and are protections for the artist but there can never be fullproof protection. We must be vigilant, and when we can, sue the bastards.
on Thursday, April 3rd, walt said
Barney, sorry. Somehow I confused Alices account of the missing royalties as part of your blog rather than a response.
So I'll ask Alice (words to a song?) why haven't you found a lawyer to help you sue for your fees and possible damages?
on Thursday, April 3rd, walt said
Barney, I'm not sure why you haven't hired a lawyer to pursue the contracted relationship you had with these two companies. Sounds to me like you might have not only back fees to collect but possibly punitive damages as well.
In essence they have stolen your copy rights. Have you paid attention to the orphan works controversy? This is a great example of how some businesses work. To believe they will all opperate faithfully is naive. They are not always intent on theft, but laziness more often than not becomes profitable neglegence. With the orphan works bill Congress is siding with these guys. In essence they are now saying your work is worthless if you are either a little hard to find or if the buyer makes only a lazy effort to find you for permission.
On the other hand...and I know this is an old discussion but one that simply has to happen anytime the termonolgy is misused...To call a reproduction limited or not is moot. As opposed to an original plate which is worked by the artist and which degrades after so many imprints thereby limiting the edition. A machine made repro is just that, capable of being reprinted so close in quality to the first edition that few could tell the difference. If the first edition was said to be limited then the second edition becomes a kind of fraud like the fake art of your discussion. This comparison in fact defines the meaning of the term limited edition. In comparison an original print requires the artist to redraw the entire image when a second or other edition is intended and the second edition is noticably varied. It's like the difference between making money when ever you need it on a copy machine and the gold standard.
To my mind when it comes to reproductions there simply is no way to confidently limit them, since they are neither original nor printed from an original but a photo reproduction of an original piece of art or a digital file. It is a wholly different animal altogether.
Essentially you are using intellectual property to create new products. Print it a different size, crop it differently, color it differently, print it on a different kind of paper, on mugs, t-shirts, buttons, greeting cards, sell groups of images together as collections on CD's...nothing wrong with any of that kind of marketing...but these are repros, not really the same as an original print.
What bugs me is the deception that the reproduction market uses when it allows consumers to believe that they are buying something that is either original or capable of being limited. It's kinda like those companies who have been using your work without paying your fees. Once you slur the meaning of the words then the line has been crossed.
A more accurate kind of termonolgy might be borrowed from the publishing industry, which is in fact what the reproduction industry really is...a form of publishing. Books are rarely published in limited editions. But there are first, second and later editions. First editions are usually ascribed more value in the point system used by appraisers. They tend to be hardbound as opposed to paperback. They tend to be smaller editions which may be construed as limited. But remember there is no promise of never publishing the same words again. In fact, it is not only assumed that the publisher will republish but that the consumer of the first edition hopes that millions of copies will be sold because popularity often makes the value of the first edition higher. This is an honest marketing approach.
To your credit you seem to be sliding more in the direction that publishers have used for a century or more and away from the sleazier tactics that the repro market has used for as long as I've been aware of it.
on Thursday, April 3rd, Alicew96 said
While I am neither Picasso, Dali, Miro or Chagall, numerous paintings of mine which were licensed by two prominent companies were reprinted over and over in different sizes and as E-cards, and have appeared on international sights all over the internet since 1997.
I have not received royalties (10 percent) in years and the companies never respond to any of my calls or letters. Though they were to be sold for certain prices, these companies have sold them to framing companies (which they probably own), and are given away with frames. Commonly known, I have learned as "penny prints."
It has always been my dream that someone would put together a class action suit against these wolves in sheep's clothing. There must be so many of us who have been ripped off.
