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.
that "parallel" would have worked for Archie Bunker twenty years ago.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.
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.
i was watching the beloved american docu-drama "P@wnS†@rs" the other day and someoneNo "prestigious gallery" uses "giclee"
This thread was just more of the same old "stuff" and not worth bothering to participate in until that post.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...
This thread was just more of the same old "stuff" and not worth bothering to participate in until that post.
Believing rich people exhibit "good taste" is a huuuuge mistake. As that famous exchange went:
"The rich are different from you and me"
"Yes, they have more money."
To which I'd add one other old chestnut:
"Behind every great fortune is a great crime."
Which means you value "not good" taste more than the taste of someone who wouldn't pay you for your work. A very lucre-centric approach. You have the potential to become rich.Never said it was good taste, just that their take on taste was more worth trusting than that of someone who wouldn't pay me for my work anyway...
why are you "refreshed" by that label?
Personally, I especially like photo silkscreen and have done good business with it (matching Pantone colors in photos).
I agree that "giclee" is a marketing ploy (but as a capitalist I don't mind marketing ); "archival pigment" is a nearly universal museum description for a inkjet pigment print ( a few non-archival INKS proved unstable within a few years, but Epson/Canon's PIGMENTS have proven very stable in common practice for the last 20 years.
I'd like to see Hernandez's work in person.
https://www.kaynegriffincorcoran.com/exhibitions/anthony-hernandez?view=slider#3
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 ...
I agree with your point. However if I may add, they have digital presses now that are basically a high speed lithographic inspired inkjet printers these days. The Heidelberg Primefire 106, for example, uses 7 colors of inkjet style ink to match 95% of the Pantone book and print up to 2,500 sheets an hour! I highly doubt they were referring to this (since their extreme price and limited production make them exceedingly rare), nor am I suggesting they knew near as much as they tried to seem, but I do find it funny how often technology can make fools out of geniuses, and geniuses out of fools.i was watching the beloved american docu-drama "P@wnS†@rs" the other day and someone
brought in a glicée print. he wanted $$$!. both the owner of the print and the people behind the counter said
"glicée is a high end lithograph" america's favorite prestige galleries uses it
Yes, it's amusing that Jackson Pollock got brought up once again.. your point about "4 year old" gets recycled regularly by people who seemingly have never actually seen it.
Everyone want to feel special though.....
You mean like people who try to claim their personal definition of 'photograph' is 'the one true photograph', and other people are just pretenders if they use anything else? ...
I think the distinction should be between a photograph and a print. Photographs are made with light. Prints are ink (for the purposes of this discussion) laid onto paper. Personally I call my stuff silver gelatin photographs from the darkroom, and "whatever" prints from the stinkjet, that is if I ever sold one. That isn't to say that a photograph has to be analog either. A lightjet for example is a photograph. A digital image is a photograph until it hits the stinkjet, then it becomes a print.
It matters because those claiming only gelatin silver photography is photography are typically trying to market their work as "special" and "superior" and therefore of more monetary value. That's the only reason it matters. Which is why, in reality, it doesn't matter....Why does it matter what tools were used to create a finished piece, be it pigments, silver, carbon, or whatever?
The obvious disdain for anything that isn't made by 100% traditional darkroom processes is far too often visible in remarks like these, and I think its this kind of prejudice that feeds a toxic "Us VS Them" attitude on the forum. Why does it matter what tools were used to create a finished piece, be it pigments, silver, carbon, or whatever?
You mean like people who try to claim their personal definition of 'photograph' is 'the one true photograph', and other people are just pretenders if they use anything else? ...
hi luckless
whose personal definition do you mean, sir john hershel 's?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography
i think its just a technical thing needs light, and the negative,
whatever kind it might be, is a stencil. i'll even go so far to say that a shadow cast on a wall
is an impermanent photographink, pigment whatever they might be, if light wasn't involved
( from what i understand ) they are xyzzy prints .. i think they should call them
noteasy prints cause they aren't easy.
hi luckless
whose personal definition do you mean, sir john hershel 's?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography
St Wiki didn't use anybody's definition. She seems to have referred to all of it as "camera images.". What about contacts?
I feel the need to release myself for a few minutes in this post:Well if we run the absurd argument of "Photography is made with the light!" to its ultimate absurd limit that some photographers use to claim their work is 'more special' than other photographer's work, then all darkroom prints fail that.
They're clearly Chemotography... The drawing was done with chemical processes between the light and the end result.
If you're not projecting the original light to be viewed, then you're obviously a dirty cheater and a fake, and everyone should buy my work instead of yours...
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.
The mistake people make is thinking that copying a $140 million radical style will bring them closer to what people and the market wants. Its like playing the lottery, having heard that most jackpot winners have played the lottery all their life, and ignoring a much larger majority who lost all their money doing the same thing. The one and only Jackson Pollock became famous for doing his own thing. There were probably others like him who never made a cent. Actually majority of others became broke doing the same thing but you never hear about them.
Another artist could crumple up a piece of paper at a public event, with all eyes/media on him, and make a fortune for being the first to do so. That piece of paper won fame for being that piece of paper during that public event. You will fail doing the same thing and will become very depressed about yourself for trying this.
So for all of us who aren't Jackson Pollocks, the medium and materials are important as nobody cares about your ideas and your useless style unless somebody sponsors and publicizes you. So it better be a C-print, Silver Gelatin, or color carbon print made with digital printers. If inkjet, I can find a much better stock image than yours for under $1 and send it to Walmart print center to get it ink-jetted.
A $1 for anyone who can translate that into intelligible English.
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?