I saw the show in person. I'm guessing the gallery didn't think it fitting to call a $10,000 print "inkjet."
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.
I saw the show in person. I'm guessing the gallery didn't think it fitting to call a $10,000 print "inkjet."
"A fool and his money will soon part",applicable to JACKSON POLLOCK'S "art".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.
what does jackson pollock have to do with calling an ink jet print some fancy name or pigment print or piezography or whatever."A fool and his money will soon part",applicable to JACKSON POLLOCK'S "art".
Dunning Kruger."A fool and his money will soon part",applicable to JACKSON POLLOCK'S "art".
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 thingI 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.
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.
Can I borrow it after you.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...
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.
"A fool and his money will soon part",applicable to JACKSON POLLOCK'S "art".
There are thousands of wealthy out there however wealth does not always confer taste.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.
I never suggested it did.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.There are thousands of wealthy out there however wealth does not always confer taste.
Taste varies. Market determines $ value.There are thousands of wealthy out there however wealth does not always confer taste.
Taste varies. Market determines $ value.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?