|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Brushstrokes 75 on Jun 15, 2011 16:45:42 GMT 1, I'll start my thread by saying that it's not targeting anyone in particular & it's not meant to be directed to all contemporary (including street artists) either.
It was just the starting point of a discussion I had with a fellow forum members.
I just realized by watching the latest releases that artists are just rehashing stuff they already done in different media. It really looks like print is just a way of saying : "If you can't afford this painting, you can still buy (a good) cheaper knock off of the same image".
I'm not discussing printing work or its quality but in the end it's printer's quality work.
I just feel like that the purpose of prints has lost itself somehow.
I agree that making prints have always been a commercial purpose of offering cheaper works. However, the dimension & the consideration artists put into their prints where of a totally different depth.
I'll take the example of Picasso (but I could take the example of most earlier contemporary & modern artists). Picasso has printed over 1000 different prints in his life.
The fact is that most of his prints are original images that were created for the sole purpose of the printing process. There were not fully reused in a painting or a (final state) drawing.
Modern artists discovered in depth the printing processes & the enjoyed & sometimes blossomed throughout this process that they took very seriously.
It was some of kind of a game for them, it was as well pushing the boundaries over. Picasso spent more than 10 years working on linocuts. He discovered the medium for in 1949 and started experimenting on the medium for about 10 years.
There are prints that were used after a drawing or a painting. Even if they are original prints, they are also called after prints.
I just feel that the proportion of prints on the scene that are done after released paitings or drawings or watercolours is amazingly high.
When I see Banksy, it's true that he often reuse street pieces for his prints. But it's a different ideat of allowing a work that was in the street to be in your living room.
Again, I'm not criticizing the images used or the effort made in making the prints. I'm just aiming at creating a discussion around the creative process & if it's the new standard for prints. (I also like the fact that I can purchase a print of a painting I wouldn't be able to afford as a print)
For example, when I see Dran upcoming release. I just feel so disappointed. When I see a guy which is so creative & is able to produce so many works. I'm just disappointed to see that they are just picking an image (regardless of its quality) that was already used as a canvas. Don't tell me that Dran can't put down a crazy image for the purpose of creating a print (I definately know he can do that!)
I'll start my thread by saying that it's not targeting anyone in particular & it's not meant to be directed to all contemporary (including street artists) either.
It was just the starting point of a discussion I had with a fellow forum members.
I just realized by watching the latest releases that artists are just rehashing stuff they already done in different media. It really looks like print is just a way of saying : "If you can't afford this painting, you can still buy (a good) cheaper knock off of the same image".
I'm not discussing printing work or its quality but in the end it's printer's quality work.
I just feel like that the purpose of prints has lost itself somehow.
I agree that making prints have always been a commercial purpose of offering cheaper works. However, the dimension & the consideration artists put into their prints where of a totally different depth.
I'll take the example of Picasso (but I could take the example of most earlier contemporary & modern artists). Picasso has printed over 1000 different prints in his life.
The fact is that most of his prints are original images that were created for the sole purpose of the printing process. There were not fully reused in a painting or a (final state) drawing.
Modern artists discovered in depth the printing processes & the enjoyed & sometimes blossomed throughout this process that they took very seriously.
It was some of kind of a game for them, it was as well pushing the boundaries over. Picasso spent more than 10 years working on linocuts. He discovered the medium for in 1949 and started experimenting on the medium for about 10 years.
There are prints that were used after a drawing or a painting. Even if they are original prints, they are also called after prints.
I just feel that the proportion of prints on the scene that are done after released paitings or drawings or watercolours is amazingly high.
When I see Banksy, it's true that he often reuse street pieces for his prints. But it's a different ideat of allowing a work that was in the street to be in your living room.
Again, I'm not criticizing the images used or the effort made in making the prints. I'm just aiming at creating a discussion around the creative process & if it's the new standard for prints. (I also like the fact that I can purchase a print of a painting I wouldn't be able to afford as a print)
For example, when I see Dran upcoming release. I just feel so disappointed. When I see a guy which is so creative & is able to produce so many works. I'm just disappointed to see that they are just picking an image (regardless of its quality) that was already used as a canvas. Don't tell me that Dran can't put down a crazy image for the purpose of creating a print (I definately know he can do that!)
|
|
Hubble Bubble
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,098
Likes โข 3,532
December 2010
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Hubble Bubble on Jun 15, 2011 16:49:55 GMT 1, I agree BS. I own several David Hockney prints - now there is an artist that really worked the media, explored the boundaries of print making and produced original works purely as prints, never available as canvasses.
I agree BS. I own several David Hockney prints - now there is an artist that really worked the media, explored the boundaries of print making and produced original works purely as prints, never available as canvasses.
|
|
chaserawr
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,146
Likes โข 224
February 2011
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by chaserawr on Jun 15, 2011 17:59:20 GMT 1, I think a lot of the street artists use prints as a way to make money so they can continue to travel and do more street art.
I think a lot of the street artists use prints as a way to make money so they can continue to travel and do more street art.
|
|
walawak
New Member
Posts โข 39
Likes โข 6
January 2011
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by walawak on Jun 15, 2011 18:17:02 GMT 1, I agree BS. I own several David Hockney prints - now there is an artist that really worked the media, explored the boundaries of print making and produced original works purely as prints, never available as canvasses.
At the risk of derailing, what's the best way to pick up a Pools? I keep my eye for them at auction as I figure I'll get ripped off by a dealer. Love them.
I agree BS. I own several David Hockney prints - now there is an artist that really worked the media, explored the boundaries of print making and produced original works purely as prints, never available as canvasses. At the risk of derailing, what's the best way to pick up a Pools? I keep my eye for them at auction as I figure I'll get ripped off by a dealer. Love them. |
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Brushstrokes 75 on Jun 15, 2011 18:25:59 GMT 1, Auction or private collectors is your best bet... Keep scouting you'll find one in you budget I guess..
chaserawr : As I said, not talking about the commercial implications of prints. Prints always had this commercial point of being cheaper & paid most artists for their living & their supplies (more than paintings did).
I'm just questionning the current climate of depreciating the medium as a photocopy machine rather than a fully creative process.
If I take Faile example, they always used screenprinting in their creative process. They are really close to printing. However, the last 2 Faile print release used imaged that were already fully exhibited & published paintings....
It's like having a really good quality poster. if you see what I mean!
Auction or private collectors is your best bet... Keep scouting you'll find one in you budget I guess.. chaserawr : As I said, not talking about the commercial implications of prints. Prints always had this commercial point of being cheaper & paid most artists for their living & their supplies (more than paintings did). I'm just questionning the current climate of depreciating the medium as a photocopy machine rather than a fully creative process. If I take Faile example, they always used screenprinting in their creative process. They are really close to printing. However, the last 2 Faile print release used imaged that were already fully exhibited & published paintings.... It's like having a really good quality poster. if you see what I mean! |
|
sohohoho
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,693
Likes โข 451
April 2011
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by sohohoho on Jun 15, 2011 19:57:03 GMT 1, I understand what you're saying Zim but I think you could have used a better example than the latest Faile print. It wasn't for me but I appreciated the way they reproduced the OG. It was a work of art in itself. Now, if they reproduced it as a Giclee, it would have been a perfect example 
I understand what you're saying Zim but I think you could have used a better example than the latest Faile print. It wasn't for me but I appreciated the way they reproduced the OG. It was a work of art in itself. Now, if they reproduced it as a Giclee, it would have been a perfect example |
|
|
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Brushstrokes 75 on Jun 15, 2011 20:05:42 GMT 1, As I said, I have nothing to say about quality or the work of the printing process which was in this example a huge job. That's not really the discussion in hand, I'm trying to pose.
But can't we imagine that they would have been able to create a similar impression with a brand new image?
Apart from the technique & the work put into it (that I'm not disminishing in any way)
Just want to know if I have somehow high standards or if there is something wrong!
As I said, I have nothing to say about quality or the work of the printing process which was in this example a huge job. That's not really the discussion in hand, I'm trying to pose.
But can't we imagine that they would have been able to create a similar impression with a brand new image?
Apart from the technique & the work put into it (that I'm not disminishing in any way)
Just want to know if I have somehow high standards or if there is something wrong!
|
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by rperry on Jun 15, 2011 20:31:03 GMT 1, For my 2 cents it is the printing houses they work with. In the US, the great printing houses such as Tyler Graphics, ULAE, Gemini GEL, Pace, etc etc. work with artists to produce original works. It was and is a collaborative effort. Not just Shep showing up at Kinkos for an offset.
It seems that Urban Artists are working with newer printing places, galleries or developing their own. In that way of development they miss out on what a master printer could bring to the table. As Zim said, imagine Picasso without Mourlot or the brothers Crommelynck to bring to life some of Picasso's far out ideas about what he could do with a print.
That is not to say that young artists now cannot do new things with the print if they choose to explore the medium as another unique way to share their vision. They already do things such as adding stencil, layering collage, hand drawn, etc. Although unique additions are not cutting edge by any means.
Here is my Miro with added India Ink from 1968 on a very cool Japon nacre paper which has a cool fibrous texture. The india ink was brushed on and then the lithograph was put on top of the hand drawn work. So perhaps things aren't invented only reinterpreted.
For my 2 cents it is the printing houses they work with. In the US, the great printing houses such as Tyler Graphics, ULAE, Gemini GEL, Pace, etc etc. work with artists to produce original works. It was and is a collaborative effort. Not just Shep showing up at Kinkos for an offset. It seems that Urban Artists are working with newer printing places, galleries or developing their own. In that way of development they miss out on what a master printer could bring to the table. As Zim said, imagine Picasso without Mourlot or the brothers Crommelynck to bring to life some of Picasso's far out ideas about what he could do with a print. That is not to say that young artists now cannot do new things with the print if they choose to explore the medium as another unique way to share their vision. They already do things such as adding stencil, layering collage, hand drawn, etc. Although unique additions are not cutting edge by any means. Here is my Miro with added India Ink from 1968 on a very cool Japon nacre paper which has a cool fibrous texture. The india ink was brushed on and then the lithograph was put on top of the hand drawn work. So perhaps things aren't invented only reinterpreted. |
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Brushstrokes 75 on Jun 15, 2011 23:03:31 GMT 1, I think that even you have a point with big master printers. I think quality isn't an issue here (even for some release it might be). I wasn't as well carrying the idea that the newer artist can't be inventive to the use of their media.
Simply putting it that way. I would like to see artists taking printmaking seriously : prints should be original creation rather than paintings knock off.
I'll take Faile again because I think the example is completely relevant! Regardless of the quality of the print or the image. Faile developped around printmaking and screenprinting. Regardless of the quality of the latest release (24 colours handpulled screenprint isn't an easy thing to do!), they are still reusing an image that was already done & made for/on another medium.
To some extent, it's totally equivalent as using the same image to print on mugs & tee shirts.....
I think that even you have a point with big master printers. I think quality isn't an issue here (even for some release it might be). I wasn't as well carrying the idea that the newer artist can't be inventive to the use of their media.
Simply putting it that way. I would like to see artists taking printmaking seriously : prints should be original creation rather than paintings knock off.
I'll take Faile again because I think the example is completely relevant! Regardless of the quality of the print or the image. Faile developped around printmaking and screenprinting. Regardless of the quality of the latest release (24 colours handpulled screenprint isn't an easy thing to do!), they are still reusing an image that was already done & made for/on another medium.
To some extent, it's totally equivalent as using the same image to print on mugs & tee shirts.....
|
|
Ottomatik
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,212
Likes โข 2,451
March 2009
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Ottomatik on Jun 16, 2011 0:16:22 GMT 1, Miss Bugs inspired me to start taking printing classes!
So I will use the 2 of them as an example.
Miss Bugs have used printing in all outlets of their creative.
From street work, OG, prints, and even invites to their show.
(I hear rumors that even stickers at Parlour may be printed.)
They have printed screens for other artist. (Joe Black)
Until Eyes Glanced, they have released very small editions of their prints.
Missum has also constructed her OG's and prints on the printing process. (dry-point etching)
When Missum or Miss Bugs release a print edition, each print is truly one of a kind. From different color spray layers to hand applied bible pages, gold leaf, and hand applied varnish.
I would say that they are not one of the 'lazy' printers in this modern world.
As for Faile and their remaking an original piece into a print edition...
When Miss Bugs release prints from a show, the prints are not images from OG's in the show, they have different images altogether. Although they have continuity with the exhibited pieces.
Miss Bugs inspired me to start taking printing classes!
So I will use the 2 of them as an example.
Miss Bugs have used printing in all outlets of their creative.
From street work, OG, prints, and even invites to their show.
(I hear rumors that even stickers at Parlour may be printed.)
They have printed screens for other artist. (Joe Black)
Until Eyes Glanced, they have released very small editions of their prints.
Missum has also constructed her OG's and prints on the printing process. (dry-point etching)
When Missum or Miss Bugs release a print edition, each print is truly one of a kind. From different color spray layers to hand applied bible pages, gold leaf, and hand applied varnish.
I would say that they are not one of the 'lazy' printers in this modern world.
As for Faile and their remaking an original piece into a print edition...
When Miss Bugs release prints from a show, the prints are not images from OG's in the show, they have different images altogether. Although they have continuity with the exhibited pieces.
|
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by bazzj04 on Jun 16, 2011 9:22:45 GMT 1, I mentioned something about this yesterday on another thread,
Lots of artist create images that can be produced with a spray can and a stencil, much like there originals, they then create screen prints of the same image i think purely to get some cash, which i understand, but what i dont get is why artist seem to have stoped producing multi editioned canvases especially if there type of work is stencil based. Is it purely because it is easier to produce screens and you can make a bigger profit with less work , or do the arist feel that the screen print shows there work better than a hand sprayed stencil. If this is the case then why produce stencil originals in the first place over screen prints?
I mentioned something about this yesterday on another thread,
Lots of artist create images that can be produced with a spray can and a stencil, much like there originals, they then create screen prints of the same image i think purely to get some cash, which i understand, but what i dont get is why artist seem to have stoped producing multi editioned canvases especially if there type of work is stencil based. Is it purely because it is easier to produce screens and you can make a bigger profit with less work , or do the arist feel that the screen print shows there work better than a hand sprayed stencil. If this is the case then why produce stencil originals in the first place over screen prints?
|
|
Gentle Mental
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,802
Likes โข 839
May 2007
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Gentle Mental on Jun 16, 2011 9:33:37 GMT 1, lazy is a tad harsh...
Much rather the artist spends the time coming up with great image than honing their print making skills. Unless printing is part of the image making (like faile)...
The image is all that matters.
lazy is a tad harsh...
Much rather the artist spends the time coming up with great image than honing their print making skills. Unless printing is part of the image making (like faile)...
The image is all that matters.
|
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by thegreatarchitect on Jun 16, 2011 11:08:49 GMT 1, I mentioned something about this yesterday on another thread, Lots of artist create images that can be produced with a spray can and a stencil, much like there originals, they then create screen prints of the same image i think purely to get some cash, which i understand, but what i dont get is why artist seem to have stoped producing multi editioned canvases especially if there type of work is stencil based. Is it purely because it is easier to produce screens and you can make a bigger profit with less work , or do the arist feel that the screen print shows there work better than a hand sprayed stencil. If this is the case then why produce stencil originals in the first place over screen prints?
WHAT ?
I mentioned something about this yesterday on another thread, Lots of artist create images that can be produced with a spray can and a stencil, much like there originals, they then create screen prints of the same image i think purely to get some cash, which i understand, but what i dont get is why artist seem to have stoped producing multi editioned canvases especially if there type of work is stencil based. Is it purely because it is easier to produce screens and you can make a bigger profit with less work , or do the arist feel that the screen print shows there work better than a hand sprayed stencil. If this is the case then why produce stencil originals in the first place over screen prints? WHAT ? |
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by des77 on Jun 16, 2011 11:13:00 GMT 1, I mentioned something about this yesterday on another thread, Lots of artist create images that can be produced with a spray can and a stencil, much like there originals, they then create screen prints of the same image i think purely to get some cash, which i understand, but what i dont get is why artist seem to have stoped producing multi editioned canvases especially if there type of work is stencil based. Is it purely because it is easier to produce screens and you can make a bigger profit with less work , or do the arist feel that the screen print shows there work better than a hand sprayed stencil. If this is the case then why produce stencil originals in the first place over screen prints? WHAT ?
.... artists can just as easy make edition editioned canvas's, but chose to do prints instead. Recent Sickboy is a great example. I agree, just put a bit more effort in and get more out at the other end.
If I had choice of an editioned canvas or a screen print of a stencil I know what id choose.
I mentioned something about this yesterday on another thread, Lots of artist create images that can be produced with a spray can and a stencil, much like there originals, they then create screen prints of the same image i think purely to get some cash, which i understand, but what i dont get is why artist seem to have stoped producing multi editioned canvases especially if there type of work is stencil based. Is it purely because it is easier to produce screens and you can make a bigger profit with less work , or do the arist feel that the screen print shows there work better than a hand sprayed stencil. If this is the case then why produce stencil originals in the first place over screen prints? WHAT ? .... artists can just as easy make edition editioned canvas's, but chose to do prints instead. Recent Sickboy is a great example. I agree, just put a bit more effort in and get more out at the other end. If I had choice of an editioned canvas or a screen print of a stencil I know what id choose. |
|
|
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by bazzj04 on Jun 16, 2011 11:14:22 GMT 1, I mentioned something about this yesterday on another thread, Lots of artist create images that can be produced with a spray can and a stencil, much like there originals, they then create screen prints of the same image i think purely to get some cash, which i understand, but what i dont get is why artist seem to have stoped producing multi editioned canvases especially if there type of work is stencil based. Is it purely because it is easier to produce screens and you can make a bigger profit with less work , or do the arist feel that the screen print shows there work better than a hand sprayed stencil. If this is the case then why produce stencil originals in the first place over screen prints? WHAT ?
WHAT?
I mentioned something about this yesterday on another thread, Lots of artist create images that can be produced with a spray can and a stencil, much like there originals, they then create screen prints of the same image i think purely to get some cash, which i understand, but what i dont get is why artist seem to have stoped producing multi editioned canvases especially if there type of work is stencil based. Is it purely because it is easier to produce screens and you can make a bigger profit with less work , or do the arist feel that the screen print shows there work better than a hand sprayed stencil. If this is the case then why produce stencil originals in the first place over screen prints? WHAT ? WHAT? |
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Brushstrokes 75 on Jun 16, 2011 11:35:34 GMT 1, lazy is a tad harsh... Much rather the artist spends the time coming up with great image than honing their print making skills. Unless printing is part of the image making (like faile)... The image is all that matters.
Are you kidding me ? lol
I thought I was being totally clear. I'm only discussing the fact that artist don't SPEND TIME CREATING NEW IMAGES FOR PRINTS. They just reuses images they have done on other medium.
Before crazy fan start to go crazy :
1) I think this is a general thing on the overall living contemporary world.
2) No artists are especially targeted/
I just gave the example of Faile for their latest release because it was fresh. But look at the 3 or 4 latest/announced release (I'll go with mainstream names) :
- Invader Rubik Oh Alright : Already made as a painting
- Dran : Upcoming from POW : already made as a painting
- Faile : Monkeys : Already made as a painting
- ZEVS LV probably already made as a painting (but ok it's a bit different) but Hammer & Sickle great one (only made as a wall painting).
Do not tell me that they all can't work out something new for a print!
3) Of course they can make SOME prints reusing images they've done before.
For where I'm standing printing isn't used as a different media you can have fun similar to spraypainting/acrylic/oil or whatever. Or we just happy to have prints considered after.
lazy is a tad harsh... Much rather the artist spends the time coming up with great image than honing their print making skills. Unless printing is part of the image making (like faile)... The image is all that matters. Are you kidding me ? lol I thought I was being totally clear. I'm only discussing the fact that artist don't SPEND TIME CREATING NEW IMAGES FOR PRINTS. They just reuses images they have done on other medium. Before crazy fan start to go crazy : 1) I think this is a general thing on the overall living contemporary world. 2) No artists are especially targeted/ I just gave the example of Faile for their latest release because it was fresh. But look at the 3 or 4 latest/announced release (I'll go with mainstream names) : - Invader Rubik Oh Alright : Already made as a painting - Dran : Upcoming from POW : already made as a painting - Faile : Monkeys : Already made as a painting - ZEVS LV probably already made as a painting (but ok it's a bit different) but Hammer & Sickle great one (only made as a wall painting). Do not tell me that they all can't work out something new for a print! 3) Of course they can make SOME prints reusing images they've done before. For where I'm standing printing isn't used as a different media you can have fun similar to spraypainting/acrylic/oil or whatever. Or we just happy to have prints considered after. |
|
Cedric Mnich
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,158
Likes โข 98
June 2009
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Cedric Mnich on Jun 16, 2011 13:14:26 GMT 1, Salut
I don't really see what the problem is. Through releasing prints of his works, an artist gives a cheaper access to his art when originals are not available anymore or too expensive. Let's be honest, it probably helps the artist to finance his living, trips and new projects. In the end, everybody is happy : fans can get a print of their fav works without spending thousands, collectors are happy with signed limited editions and artist increases his visibility (plus gets extra money).
Now, some artists can bring something new too through print editions : Invader has released several prints with embossing technique. The pic certainly is not new, but the embossing brings something valuable to the technique.
Anyway, unless the artist starts from scratch through Illustrator / photoshop or directly through engraving / linocut techniques like you mentioned, there is necessarily an original work done first so prints are always derivatives.
Salut
I don't really see what the problem is. Through releasing prints of his works, an artist gives a cheaper access to his art when originals are not available anymore or too expensive. Let's be honest, it probably helps the artist to finance his living, trips and new projects. In the end, everybody is happy : fans can get a print of their fav works without spending thousands, collectors are happy with signed limited editions and artist increases his visibility (plus gets extra money).
Now, some artists can bring something new too through print editions : Invader has released several prints with embossing technique. The pic certainly is not new, but the embossing brings something valuable to the technique.
Anyway, unless the artist starts from scratch through Illustrator / photoshop or directly through engraving / linocut techniques like you mentioned, there is necessarily an original work done first so prints are always derivatives.
|
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Brushstrokes 75 on Jun 16, 2011 13:38:25 GMT 1, Salut Through releasing prints of his works, an artist gives a cheaper access to his art when originals are not available anymore or too expensive. Let's be honest, it probably helps the artist to finance his living, trips and new projects.
I completely agree with this part and it has always been the case for centuries. Artists usually "covers" their expenses (when they do cover them) selling prints. It has been the case for centuries. I'm in no way rejecting that! It has been the same thing for any major artists in the past.
However, there is a huge difference between releasing a print on a image that has been already published, exhibited and sold on another medium. I'm not saying that artists are consistently using this method but it looks like it tends to be the trend these days.
Again, if we were to be completely honest most of this work would consider as "after" prints. The image wasn't created aiming for being printing. It just has been used.
I don't get your last comment. Are we at the stage were artists can only produce works through photoshop or illustrator?
Sir Peter Blake, David Hockney, Sam Francis..... all released silkscreens, serigraphs, lithograph etc etc... Did they need photoshop to create? Didn't their print were original images (most of the times)?
It's just funny that for earlier prints the distinction is clearly made between a work (after) and a work by an artist.
Obviously, an image has to originate somewhere. But there's a difference between a derivative and a duplicate.
Different case for smaller artist though. I'm mostly focusing on mainstream artists.
Just have a feeling that in some ways the standard got lowered. Again, it won't stop me for liking the art and buying it. And it seems that many thinks that it's ok to do so.
Salut Through releasing prints of his works, an artist gives a cheaper access to his art when originals are not available anymore or too expensive. Let's be honest, it probably helps the artist to finance his living, trips and new projects. I completely agree with this part and it has always been the case for centuries. Artists usually "covers" their expenses (when they do cover them) selling prints. It has been the case for centuries. I'm in no way rejecting that! It has been the same thing for any major artists in the past. However, there is a huge difference between releasing a print on a image that has been already published, exhibited and sold on another medium. I'm not saying that artists are consistently using this method but it looks like it tends to be the trend these days. Again, if we were to be completely honest most of this work would consider as "after" prints. The image wasn't created aiming for being printing. It just has been used. I don't get your last comment. Are we at the stage were artists can only produce works through photoshop or illustrator? Sir Peter Blake, David Hockney, Sam Francis..... all released silkscreens, serigraphs, lithograph etc etc... Did they need photoshop to create? Didn't their print were original images (most of the times)? It's just funny that for earlier prints the distinction is clearly made between a work (after) and a work by an artist. Obviously, an image has to originate somewhere. But there's a difference between a derivative and a duplicate. Different case for smaller artist though. I'm mostly focusing on mainstream artists. Just have a feeling that in some ways the standard got lowered. Again, it won't stop me for liking the art and buying it. And it seems that many thinks that it's ok to do so. |
|
MGK1
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,282
Likes โข 561
May 2010
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by MGK1 on Jun 16, 2011 13:49:18 GMT 1, .... artists can just as easy make edition editioned canvas's, but chose to do prints instead. Recent Sickboy is a great example. I agree, just put a bit more effort in and get more out at the other end. If I had choice of an editioned canvas or a screen print of a stencil I know what id choose.
howver, as we saw with the recent sickboy release, if that editioned canvas is not much bigger than a 50p piece i would probably go for a decent sized print
.... artists can just as easy make edition editioned canvas's, but chose to do prints instead. Recent Sickboy is a great example. I agree, just put a bit more effort in and get more out at the other end. If I had choice of an editioned canvas or a screen print of a stencil I know what id choose. howver, as we saw with the recent sickboy release, if that editioned canvas is not much bigger than a 50p piece i would probably go for a decent sized print |
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by des77 on Jun 16, 2011 14:09:14 GMT 1, .... artists can just as easy make edition editioned canvas's, but chose to do prints instead. Recent Sickboy is a great example. I agree, just put a bit more effort in and get more out at the other end. If I had choice of an editioned canvas or a screen print of a stencil I know what id choose. howver, as we saw with the recent sickboy release, if that editioned canvas is not much bigger than a 50p piece i would probably go for a decent sized print
luckily sickboy is usually someone that tends to try make prints individual with 'hand finishing' that adds to a print rather than purely for decorative purposes
.... artists can just as easy make edition editioned canvas's, but chose to do prints instead. Recent Sickboy is a great example. I agree, just put a bit more effort in and get more out at the other end. If I had choice of an editioned canvas or a screen print of a stencil I know what id choose. howver, as we saw with the recent sickboy release, if that editioned canvas is not much bigger than a 50p piece i would probably go for a decent sized print luckily sickboy is usually someone that tends to try make prints individual with 'hand finishing' that adds to a print rather than purely for decorative purposes |
|
Gentle Mental
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,802
Likes โข 839
May 2007
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Gentle Mental on Jun 16, 2011 14:49:42 GMT 1,
Wouldn't a great image makes a great print?
Your demand that the print needs to be a made-for-print only image is er...what's the word...
Wouldn't a great image makes a great print?
Your demand that the print needs to be a made-for-print only image is er...what's the word...
|
|
Ottomatik
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,212
Likes โข 2,451
March 2009
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Ottomatik on Jun 16, 2011 15:57:10 GMT 1, Are you kidding me ? lol I thought I was being totally clear. I'm only discussing the fact that artist don't SPEND TIME CREATING NEW IMAGES FOR PRINTS. They just reuses images they have done on other medium.
Did you not read my post on Miss Bugs?
Or are you thinking my point is invalid?
Are you kidding me ? lol I thought I was being totally clear. I'm only discussing the fact that artist don't SPEND TIME CREATING NEW IMAGES FOR PRINTS. They just reuses images they have done on other medium. Did you not read my post on Miss Bugs? Or are you thinking my point is invalid? |
|
|
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Brushstrokes 75 on Jun 16, 2011 16:22:38 GMT 1, Rob I quoted gentlemental not you!
I agree that this doesn't (obviously) apply to all artist. Or even to all prints released by every artists.
My thinking was just about the point that now it's okay for an artist to release prints duplicated from an already published imaged.
Your point on Miss Bugs is completely valid. I'm disregarding the innovation of the printing process as it wasn't the discussion at end. But she's definately spot on releasing images that are only released as a print.
Rob I quoted gentlemental not you!
I agree that this doesn't (obviously) apply to all artist. Or even to all prints released by every artists.
My thinking was just about the point that now it's okay for an artist to release prints duplicated from an already published imaged.
Your point on Miss Bugs is completely valid. I'm disregarding the innovation of the printing process as it wasn't the discussion at end. But she's definately spot on releasing images that are only released as a print.
|
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Brushstrokes 75 on Jun 16, 2011 16:29:21 GMT 1, Wouldn't a great image makes a great print? Your demand that the print needs to be a made-for-print only image is er...what's the word...
Man I respect your opinion.
But thinking that I'm crazy is completely disregarding the standards the art market used to have. By the way, it's not my demand, it was just a common thing for a long time. This discussion is just about knowing if those standards have shifted.
Yes, it might look stupid or crazy but MOST prints that were released by any major artist from the 20th century was created as a print-only image. There are always a percentage of few images that were released after paintings/drawings. If you care to check the auctions & catalogue raisonnรฉ, there are often referenced as "after" prints. A print after Picasso is an original print, however the printing process just used an already existing image rather than a new design.
For Picasso, those after prints aren't even referenced in the catalogue of prints. There are referenced with the posters catalogue raisonnรฉ (or not referenced at all) because they were often used when a poster using the same image was pulled.
Wouldn't a great image makes a great print? Your demand that the print needs to be a made-for-print only image is er...what's the word... Man I respect your opinion. But thinking that I'm crazy is completely disregarding the standards the art market used to have. By the way, it's not my demand, it was just a common thing for a long time. This discussion is just about knowing if those standards have shifted. Yes, it might look stupid or crazy but MOST prints that were released by any major artist from the 20th century was created as a print-only image. There are always a percentage of few images that were released after paintings/drawings. If you care to check the auctions & catalogue raisonnรฉ, there are often referenced as "after" prints. A print after Picasso is an original print, however the printing process just used an already existing image rather than a new design. For Picasso, those after prints aren't even referenced in the catalogue of prints. There are referenced with the posters catalogue raisonnรฉ (or not referenced at all) because they were often used when a poster using the same image was pulled. |
|
kalm
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,005
Likes โข 354
November 2010
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by kalm on Jun 16, 2011 16:33:15 GMT 1, And most Artists (today) that achieve a certain level of success often stop even pulling the prints themselves...they basically do some sketches and hand it off...that's cheating IMHO
And most Artists (today) that achieve a certain level of success often stop even pulling the prints themselves...they basically do some sketches and hand it off...that's cheating IMHO
|
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Brushstrokes 75 on Jun 16, 2011 16:39:31 GMT 1, Now another post which is my opinion only :
It might sound crazy but the perception by a collector of an original work produced only as a print & an after print is usually different. Far beyond the image, printing can be a really complex process. Now through an original work you're asking yourself. Why did he chose to use those colours? How he intended his process?
Rather than it's just a nice image.
It's just reminded me of the great interview of Sage Vauhn in Juxtapoz's last issue. He said something that I can relate to. He said something like I'm not really attached to my finished work (canvases) because what I find more interesting is the process.
Art isn't just about a nice image. It's also about getting sometimes a message, trying to understand the genius of an artist by understanding his intent & his creative process.You art will give you much more emotion in that way. That's what makes art fascinating IMHO. It's also what makes a guy like Picasso so interesting. If you take his bull series lithograph. The final result isn't especially amazing but watching how the bull was decomposed is what matters and what makes him a genius.
Now another post which is my opinion only :
It might sound crazy but the perception by a collector of an original work produced only as a print & an after print is usually different. Far beyond the image, printing can be a really complex process. Now through an original work you're asking yourself. Why did he chose to use those colours? How he intended his process?
Rather than it's just a nice image.
It's just reminded me of the great interview of Sage Vauhn in Juxtapoz's last issue. He said something that I can relate to. He said something like I'm not really attached to my finished work (canvases) because what I find more interesting is the process.
Art isn't just about a nice image. It's also about getting sometimes a message, trying to understand the genius of an artist by understanding his intent & his creative process.You art will give you much more emotion in that way. That's what makes art fascinating IMHO. It's also what makes a guy like Picasso so interesting. If you take his bull series lithograph. The final result isn't especially amazing but watching how the bull was decomposed is what matters and what makes him a genius.
|
|
Gentle Mental
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,802
Likes โข 839
May 2007
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Gentle Mental on Jun 16, 2011 16:59:03 GMT 1, Yea Warhol kinda ruined it for the purists... And I think it's okay. It shifts the focus from craft to art. Yes we are losing craft but hoPefully we are getting better art.
But what I do know is...
I'll take a signed numbered screen print guernica over a made -for-Print only Picasso any day. Made for canvas images are generally better. Throughout history whatnot
Yea Warhol kinda ruined it for the purists... And I think it's okay. It shifts the focus from craft to art. Yes we are losing craft but hoPefully we are getting better art.
But what I do know is...
I'll take a signed numbered screen print guernica over a made -for-Print only Picasso any day. Made for canvas images are generally better. Throughout history whatnot
|
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Daniel Silk on Jun 16, 2011 17:05:55 GMT 1, I do think sometimes when an edition is gonna be small, it would be better spray/stencil for some artists, as it fits better with their style of work. Some street artist styles dunt really translate into prints very well 
I do think sometimes when an edition is gonna be small, it would be better spray/stencil for some artists, as it fits better with their style of work. Some street artist styles dunt really translate into prints very well |
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by bazzj04 on Jun 16, 2011 17:07:37 GMT 1, AP the Artist on here produces multi editioned hand sprayed work rather than a screen print well i know at least he has done, why is this not more common? but you see many a screen print produced which could be done with a stencil, is it lazy?
AP the Artist on here produces multi editioned hand sprayed work rather than a screen print well i know at least he has done, why is this not more common? but you see many a screen print produced which could be done with a stencil, is it lazy?
|
|
|
|
Why are contemporary artists so lazy with printing, by Brushstrokes 75 on Jun 16, 2011 17:30:20 GMT 1, Yea Warhol kinda ruined it for the purists... And I think it's okay. It shifts the focus from craft to art. Yes we are losing craft but hoPefully we are getting better art. But what I do know is... I'll take a signed numbered screen print guernica over a made -for-Print only Picasso any day. Made for canvas images are generally better. Throughout history whatnot
Why do you buy prints and not posters then? Just becaused it's signed??
So you'd rather buy or find more valuable a signed guernica offset print than this :
or this :
I'll take those two any day and I think I won't be the only one.
Be careful, there's not that many warhol paintings that were duplicated into prints. Images are often twisted but there's not that many!
However, I don't see the logic in saying that losing craft will get you better art..
PS : Just saw you know the first one will buy you a pretty well sized Oil on Canvas by Picasso...
Like this one :
www.artnet.fr/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=428075820&page=1&
or this one :
www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/work-1091.php
Yea Warhol kinda ruined it for the purists... And I think it's okay. It shifts the focus from craft to art. Yes we are losing craft but hoPefully we are getting better art. But what I do know is... I'll take a signed numbered screen print guernica over a made -for-Print only Picasso any day. Made for canvas images are generally better. Throughout history whatnot Why do you buy prints and not posters then? Just becaused it's signed?? So you'd rather buy or find more valuable a signed guernica offset print than this : or this : I'll take those two any day and I think I won't be the only one. Be careful, there's not that many warhol paintings that were duplicated into prints. Images are often twisted but there's not that many! However, I don't see the logic in saying that losing craft will get you better art.. PS : Just saw you know the first one will buy you a pretty well sized Oil on Canvas by Picasso... Like this one : www.artnet.fr/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=428075820&page=1&or this one : www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/work-1091.php |
|
๐ธ