Call it what it is

[Bob Carnie]

I have always called my inkjet prints Ink on paper .. I think this pretty much sums up what I produce on my Canon Printer.. I also call my other prints Silver Gelatin Prints or Gum Pigment over Palladium. I let the viewer decide if they like the print and am always available to describe the process in deeper values.

 

[Pieter12]

I saw the show in person. I'm guessing the gallery didn't think it fitting to call a $10,000 print "inkjet."

 

[jtk]

I saw the show in person. I'm guessing the gallery didn't think it fitting to call a $10,000 print "inkjet."

You demonstrated in your own earlier post that they did call it inkjet. Why slander the gallery?

 

[Pieter12]

Different gallery, different show than the original post. I was commending Kayne Griffin Corchoran for calling an inkjet an inkjet. Second, different gallery was using the term "archival pigment."

 

[JBrunner]

"Inkjet" is a tell nothing term. Pictorial Art (subjective as it is) is most commonly described as the medium (Oil, Watercolor, Silver Gelatin, Gum over, Platinum/Palladium, Carbon, etc.) it stands to reason that "Pigment Ink" is as accurate a description as you are likely to get. That's my two cents, that and that people buy prints when they like how they look, and collectors got over the whole thing years ago. That said, a person can call their own stuff seedless watermelon if they like, although it says even less than "Inkjet".

Sometimes it is taken a bit further and the substrate is included, for example “Platinum Palladium on Arches Platine”. Personally I think think that with digital printing that the paper is an important part of the description, because you can’t really tell the difference between a high gloss baryta and a cotton rag paper by the image on a computer screen. It help gives a more knowledgeable viewer a better idea of the print.
I think it is important to realize that once something is printed that it is no longer an image, but a physical object that carries an image. It behooves us as photographers to be accurate and mindful of what we produce, particularly now that image making is an everyday practice of almost everyone. Now more than ever prints matter, precisely because they are physical art in a world of digital noise.

 

[Pieter12]

My point in the original post was that I admired a high-price, prestigious gallery for calling an inkjet print just that, not "giclee" (an invented term to make inkjet prints sound less mundane), or "archival pigment," a term that might apply to any number of graphic arts prints such as silkscreens, woodcuts or lithographs. Here is a gallery that sells some photography along with high-end, big-bucks art at nose-bleed prices. They think the prints do not need fancy descriptive language to merit the prices they are asking.

 

[JBrunner]

My point in the original post was that I admired a high-price, prestigious gallery for calling an inkjet print just that, not "giclee" (an invented term to make inkjet prints sound less mundane), or "archival pigment," a term that might apply to any number of graphic arts prints such as silkscreens, woodcuts or lithographs. Here is a gallery that sells some photography along with high-end, big-bucks art at nose-bleed prices. They think the prints do not need fancy descriptive language to merit the prices they are asking.

To each his own, but an accurate description is not to my mind fancy descriptive language. I do agree giclee is a complete affectation, again describing very little, and the up-sell being that you don't use the term "giclee" in France unless you are talking about an adult film.

 

[jtk]

I saw the show in person. I'm guessing the gallery didn't think it fitting to call a $10,000 print "inkjet."

Fine galleries and museum exhibitions commonly use "archival pigment" because their buyer/collectors do know what that means...often they'll mention type of paper because non-photo prints also do that. Etherton Gallery in Tucson AZ always has prints by many of the most "famous" fine art photographers, both traditional and inkjet, many/most in the $5K-and-up range. I suspect people who collect expensive prints know that silver gelatin (for example) is unlikely to be more "archival" than inkjet...they buy what their artist prints.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attract...-Reviews-Etherton_Gallery-Tucson_Arizona.html

https://ethertongallery.com/profiles/

 

[anthonym3]

Eh. I don't care what they call it. If someone is buying expensive art and they don't know what the terminology means... well I guess that's just an application of the old adage "a fool and his money will soon part".

In any case, the value isn't in the materials or process. Otherwise all 8x10 silver gelatin prints would be worth the same. So you could call it a Cheapachrome for all I care.

"A fool and his money will soon part",applicable to JACKSON POLLOCK'S "art".

 

[removed account4]

"A fool and his money will soon part",applicable to JACKSON POLLOCK'S "art".

what does jackson pollock have to do with calling an ink jet print some fancy name or pigment print or piezography or whatever.
im always amused at people who see JP;s stuff and say " my 4 year old could do that" but ...

 

[jim10219]

"A fool and his money will soon part",applicable to JACKSON POLLOCK'S "art".

Dunning Kruger.

 

[anthonym3]

I once viewed a short film about POLLOCK"S "technique". It was made at his EAST HAMPTON,LONG ISLAND HOME. It showed him taking a 4x8 piece of plywood out of his pickup truck and placing it on the sand at low tide. He then climbed up onto the dock and proceeded to throw paints from gallon cans and dripping more with a large brush. He then sat and smoked a few cigarettes while the paint dried. He then took it home and placed it upon a table saw and cut it into a few pieces which no doubt were sold to "art lovers" at exorbitant prices. So a four year old could do it BUT could pick up neither the plywood nor the paint cans nor drive home. P.S. the allusion to POLLOCK was to draw a parallel.

 

[MattKing]

I once viewed a short film about POLLOCK"S "technique". It was made at his EAST HAMPTON,LONG ISLAND HOME. It showed him taking a 4x8 piece of plywood out of his pickup truck and placing it on the sand at low tide. He then climbed up onto the dock and proceeded to throw paints from gallon cans and dripping more with a large brush. He then sat and smoked a few cigarettes while the paint dried. He then took it home and placed it upon a table saw and cut it into a few pieces which no doubt were sold to "art lovers" at exorbitant prices. So a four year old could do it BUT could pick up neither the plywood nor the paint cans nor drive home. P.S. the allusion to POLLOCK was to draw a parallel.

It is amazing, isn't it, how Jackson Pollock could achieve such amazing and powerful results using a method that would result in nothing more than a waste of paint if the rest of us tried to do the same thing.
While I wouldn't want to (and definitely couldn't) pay the amounts of money that a Jackson Pollock painting commands, I'd love to at least borrow one...

 

[removed account4]

I once viewed a short film about POLLOCK"S "technique". It was made at his EAST HAMPTON,LONG ISLAND HOME. It showed him taking a 4x8 piece of plywood out of his pickup truck and placing it on the sand at low tide. He then climbed up onto the dock and proceeded to throw paints from gallon cans and dripping more with a large brush. He then sat and smoked a few cigarettes while the paint dried. He then took it home and placed it upon a table saw and cut it into a few pieces which no doubt were sold to "art lovers" at exorbitant prices. So a four year old could do it BUT could pick up neither the plywood nor the paint cans nor drive home. P.S. the allusion to POLLOCK was to draw a parallel.

would that have been any different than a photographer making an exposure and a photographic print and selling it to "photography lovers" ?

 

[awty]

It is amazing, isn't it, how Jackson Pollock could achieve such amazing and powerful results using a method that would result in nothing more than a waste of paint if the rest of us tried to do the same thing.
While I wouldn't want to (and definitely couldn't) pay the amounts of money that a Jackson Pollock painting commands, I'd love to at least borrow one...

Can I borrow it after you.

 

[jtk]

http://ctein.com/postlist2.htm Ctein is famously a "great printer"... I'm sure he is one (of thousands) ... explore Ctein's website : a) his gallery is comprised almost entirely of "dramatic" scenes and b) he now ONLY prints Epson (i.e. not dye transfer).

 

[warden]

My point in the original post was that I admired a high-price, prestigious gallery for calling an inkjet print just that, not "giclee" (an invented term to make inkjet prints sound less mundane), or "archival pigment," a term that might apply to any number of graphic arts prints such as silkscreens, woodcuts or lithographs. Here is a gallery that sells some photography along with high-end, big-bucks art at nose-bleed prices. They think the prints do not need fancy descriptive language to merit the prices they are asking.

Yep. I also prefer there to be no layers of nonsense between me and understanding exactly what I'm buying. Giclée is unhelpful neologism and makes my bullshit meter light up when in galleries.

 

[warden]

"A fool and his money will soon part",applicable to JACKSON POLLOCK'S "art".

Pollock's “No. 5, 1948,” originally sold for fifteen hundred bucks and most recently changed hands for $140 million. Everyone who has ever touched that painting has been the "fool" you describe, and later was hit with an avalanche of money when they passed it on to the next person.

The fools.

 

[anthonym3]

Pollock's “No. 5, 1948,” originally sold for fifteen hundred bucks and most recently changed hands for $140 million. Everyone who has ever touched that painting has been the "fool" you describe, and later was hit with an avalanche of money when they passed it on to the next person.

The fools.

There are thousands of wealthy out there however wealth does not always confer taste.

 

[warden]

There are thousands of wealthy out there however wealth does not always confer taste.

I never suggested it did.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Presentation matters. Archival Pigment print works because it doesn't sound like you're in an office park in the 'burbs and is an accurate description of the materials.

It works better than C-Print or Chromogenic Print ever did.

 

[removed account4]

There are thousands of wealthy out there however wealth does not always confer taste.

i wasn't aware that the value of anything, whether it is a black / white silver or pt/pd or pigment or whatever print or a painting, or silverware or furniture or homes or cars or anything else had to do with taste. it has to do with how much someone wants to pay for something.

 

[Pieter12]

There are thousands of wealthy out there however wealth does not always confer taste.

Taste varies. Market determines $ value.

 

[Luckless]

Taste varies. Market determines $ value.

Don't know about you, but I'll trust and prefer the tastes of those who can fork over a million for a bit of paper or fabric they want to hang on a wall over the tastes of people who can't be bothered to pay $10 for it...

But that's just me.

 

[jtk]

Presentation matters. Archival Pigment print works because it doesn't sound like you're in an office park in the 'burbs and is an accurate description of the materials.

It works better than C-Print or Chromogenic Print ever did.

Yes.