Jasper Johns 🇺🇸 Painter • Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism

[churchwood]

Thanks Coach - I know exactly what you mean - used to use them in the good old days when photos were printed out and put into albums rather that sitting on a hard disk somewhere - great tip many thanks

[whiteside]

I'm assuming the IKEA frame is a 50 x 70 Ribba or Mossebo and a little of the print has been lost behind the standard mount (40 x 50).

[Coach]

Jul 19, 2017 12:50:22 GMT 1 churchwood said:

Thanks Coach - I know exactly what you mean - used to use them in the good old days when photos were printed out and put into albums rather that sitting on a hard disk somewhere - great tip many thanks

You are welcome.
The only thing I would add is that as far as I am aware ikea frame glass offers no uv protection.
Persinally I wouldn't use a mount for one of these prints with no uv protection. Might be worth asking your framer for some cut to size uv glass if s/he is happy to provide it.

[rosac]

Jul 19, 2017 13:23:20 GMT 1 Coach said:

Jul 19, 2017 12:50:22 GMT 1 churchwood said:

Thanks Coach - I know exactly what you mean - used to use them in the good old days when photos were printed out and put into albums rather that sitting on a hard disk somewhere - great tip many thanks

You are welcome.
The only thing I would add is that as far as I am aware ikea frame glass offers no uv protection.
Persinally I wouldn't use a mount for one of these prints with no uv protection. Might be worth asking your framer for some cut to size uv glass if s/he is happy to provide it.

Agreed with coach. Some good advice there. Despite being cheap prints I'd personally pay the extra and get a quality job done by MFM.

[Howard Johnson]

Jul 19, 2017 11:51:27 GMT 1 churchwood said:

Jul 19, 2017 11:42:34 GMT 1 spirit said:

Which ikea frame/size is that Christopher? Does the mount come with it? Not sure if having a wider mount at top than sides would bother me longterm or not...

Also - can I ask how you secured the print to the mount please ?

I have used (sparingly) tape in the past with Ikea frames (which are great value btw)  that was supposed to be easy to remove and conservation friendly but ended up being an absolute sod to remove as it was so tacky and I'd hate to end up doing the same with these.

cheers

CW

I used photo corners for the mount and added a sheet of acid free paper to the backend to prevent any staining. Very true about the lack of UV support. This one is kept in a dark room so I'm not terribly concerned, and this was also just to get it on the wall while it waits in the framing queue (would not recommend for the long term without a UV upgrade). I think the frame is like 19.5x27.5, and I think the visible area with the mat is approx. 15x17. Works great for the flags, but idk about the other images.  

[Rouen Cathedral]

Jun 26, 2017 0:01:32 GMT 1 probored said:

Cool video Ploppi. Sounds like the prints in this thread are briefly discussed in the following video:

Finally got around to watching this. Incredible video.

These works not only were reviewed by Johns but inspired him to use the offset printing technique and that he was impressed with the results.

So many discreditors on here are clueless. They need someone to flash a high priced pumped up piece of art in their face for them to think it's good art.

[rockbeer]

According to Jordan at ULAE, orders are finally slowing down, they're finally getting through the backlog, and all current outstanding orders should be shipped by the end of next week.

So tempted to add another print to my False Start II - maybe a Target or Flag III. Seems like they still have inventory of most designs.

[rosac]

Recieved my firstorder of 10 prints today. Packaged to perfection in a wooden crate. These are like no prints I've ever owned. I'm amazed to see works of this age in this condition. The quality of the paper is the best I've seen. Very excited about getting 4 of these hung on my walls. Anyone having doubts on these.....don't!

[Argiebaji]

Jul 24, 2017 21:27:58 GMT 1 rosac said:

Recieved my firstorder of 10 prints today. Packaged to perfection in a wooden crate. These are like no prints I've ever owned. I'm amazed to see works of this age in this condition. The quality of the paper is the best I've seen. Very excited about getting 4 of these hung on my walls. Anyone having doubts on these.....don't!

Agree with all of the above... the paper and quality plus the age of these prints give you a proper tingle ... !!

[sweetmimsy]

picked up my flag II from the post office today, no customs charge! Looks wonderful too.

[Rouen Cathedral]

Agree with all the above. These are incredible. Anyone trying to discredit these throughout this thread don't know a thing about art!

[met]

Jul 9, 2017 18:44:19 GMT 1 Octopus UK said:

OK, and I don't want to judge people here, but to make such a claim could be construed as a fraud? I'd be happier to potentially take a 15% hit.

Jul 9, 2017 19:53:40 GMT 1 mla said:

For the purposes of heading 9702, the expression "original engravings, prints and lithographs" means impressions produced directly, in black and white or in colour, of one or of several plates wholly executed by hand by the artist, irrespective of the process or of the material employed by him, but not including any mechanical or photomechanical process.

I don't think these prints, or a number of prints people apply for (and receive) refunds on actually meet the criteria of the reduced VAT rate. 

Claimants may well receive refunds, especially if their paperwork lands with an employee at HM Revenue & Customs who lacks knowledge of the law and/or printmaking techniques, or who doesn't bother verifying the details.

But the above note to Chapter 97 (Works of art, collectors' pieces and antiques) posted by mla should have put an end to the discussion about the correct level of import VAT pursuant to the HMRC Integrated Tariff of the United Kingdom.

Some later posts on this subject are wild-goose chasing. The Johns facsimiles clearly don't qualify for import VAT at the reduced rate of 5%.

___________


Consequently, UK buyers who are filling out the form claiming import VAT was incorrectly charged at 20%:

(i) have not read or understood the above text; and/or
(ii) do not understand the offset lithography process; or, alternatively
(iii) do not have issues with making a false declaration to HMRC.


For the avoidance of doubt regarding point (ii), offset printing is by definition indirect. In other words, there are no "impressions produced directly". The very purpose of the blanket cylinder is to print on the substrate paper in an indirect manner. Moreover, offset printing in the 1970s would have been a photomechanical process.

[met]

Jul 13, 2017 20:36:33 GMT 1 Poly Mindset said:

Whatever your opinions about these print are, that is fine. I have to say this is the most stimulating thread that has been on this forum in some time, which is great. Although, Christopher is right with regards to treating each other with dignity and respect here, even if we disagree. Personally, I agree with Christopher's opinion on these prints and have to add that the only reason they have the facsimile disclaimer on them at all is to differentiate them from the original prints. Other than that, the only difference is the size and that they are not signed and numbered. As far as who made the plates, who knows for sure. Whoever made them I'm sure it was with Johns approval. Furthermore, all these were done with his knowledge and you can bet your bottom dollars that at that time he wasn't going to let any of his work be replicated without his knowledge and approval. Additionally, I'm sure it would have been uncharacteristic of Ulae to do that behind his back. I think one of the coolest things about these prints is exactly what this thread is all about and that is the mystery of it all. The fact still remains, Johns did play a part in these prints. My opinion is that it was most likely more than anyone knows, because these are so old and a lot of the information is third hand. I think these "Fine Art Prints" are fabulous. If you have them, Enjoy.

Besides differentiating these prints from the Johns original editions, the express references to "facsimile" and "offset" provide transparency and reduce confusion about what they actually are.

Without clear labelling, unscrupulous individuals might also look to exaggerate, obfuscate or otherwise try to pass off the facsimiles as something they're not.

That said, confusion hasn't been eliminated entirely, as is clear from this thread.

___________


In terms of the differences with the original editions, there's also the Telamon Editions logo appearing within the images of the facsimiles (or at least some of them).

Separately, it is a serious oversight to omit one of the most crucial distinctions: printmaking technique. The facsimiles are reproductions of editions produced by ULAE in the early 1960s. But none of the latter were offsets; they were all "proper" lithographs.

[Poly Mindset]

Jul 25, 2017 1:50:31 GMT 1 met said:

Jul 13, 2017 20:36:33 GMT 1 Poly Mindset said:

Whatever your opinions about these print are, that is fine. I have to say this is the most stimulating thread that has been on this forum in some time, which is great. Although, Christopher is right with regards to treating each other with dignity and respect here, even if we disagree. Personally, I agree with Christopher's opinion on these prints and have to add that the only reason they have the facsimile disclaimer on them at all is to differentiate them from the original prints. Other than that, the only difference is the size and that they are not signed and numbered. As far as who made the plates, who knows for sure. Whoever made them I'm sure it was with Johns approval. Furthermore, all these were done with his knowledge and you can bet your bottom dollars that at that time he wasn't going to let any of his work be replicated without his knowledge and approval. Additionally, I'm sure it would have been uncharacteristic of Ulae to do that behind his back. I think one of the coolest things about these prints is exactly what this thread is all about and that is the mystery of it all. The fact still remains, Johns did play a part in these prints. My opinion is that it was most likely more than anyone knows, because these are so old and a lot of the information is third hand. I think these "Fine Art Prints" are fabulous. If you have them, Enjoy.

Besides differentiating these prints from the Johns original editions, the express references to "facsimile" and "offset" provide transparency and reduce confusion about what they actually are.

Without clear labelling, unscrupulous individuals might also look to exaggerate, obfuscate or otherwise try to pass off the facsimiles as something they're not.

That said, confusion hasn't been eliminated entirely, as is clear from this thread.

___________


In terms of the differences with the original editions, there's also the Telamon Editions logo appearing within the images of the facsimiles (or at least some of them).

Separately, it is a serious oversight to omit one of the most crucial distinctions: printmaking technique. The facsimiles are reproductions of editions produced by ULAE in the early 1960s. But none of the latter were offsets; they were all "proper" lithographs.

OK, I don't really understand what you are trying to say. In regards to your statement: "Separately, it is a serious oversight to omit one of the most crucial distinctions: printmaking technique. The facsimiles are reproductions of editions produced by ULAE in the early 1960s. But none of the latter were offsets; they were all "proper" lithographs.

  All I can do is reiterate what has been stated by the publisher:

Tatyana Grosman started Telamon Editions Limited in 1970 as a commercial venture of Universal Limited Art Editions. It was closed upon her death in 1982. Among her initial projects was a facsimile catalogue of Jasper Johns prints published by ULAE. The format for the catalogue was 22 1/2 x 17 1/2 inches and was to be printed in an edition of 300 on the same paper as the original limited editions prints. A hand fed offset pressed was purchased in 1971 to proof and print the project. 13 facsimiles were printed on the hand-fed offset press by Bill Goldston and James V. Smith under the supervision of the artist before 1982 when the it was abandoned for the complete catalogue raisonne published in 1993. Other than their size, the paper, color and printing sequence match the original edition.

Note where it states these 13 facsimilies were printed on a hand fed offset press by Bill Goldston and James V. Simth
Please clarify what you are talking about so that we may all understand. Thanks.

[Poesia]

Jul 25, 2017 4:19:47 GMT 1 Poly Mindset said:

Jul 25, 2017 1:50:31 GMT 1 met said:

Besides differentiating these prints from the Johns original editions, the express references to "facsimile" and "offset" provide transparency and reduce confusion about what they actually are.

Without clear labelling, unscrupulous individuals might also look to exaggerate, obfuscate or otherwise try to pass off the facsimiles as something they're not.

That said, confusion hasn't been eliminated entirely, as is clear from this thread.

___________


In terms of the differences with the original editions, there's also the Telamon Editions logo appearing within the images of the facsimiles (or at least some of them).

Separately, it is a serious oversight to omit one of the most crucial distinctions: printmaking technique. The facsimiles are reproductions of editions produced by ULAE in the early 1960s. But none of the latter were offsets; they were all "proper" lithographs.

OK, I don't really understand what you are trying to say. In regards to your statement: "Separately, it is a serious oversight to omit one of the most crucial distinctions: printmaking technique. The facsimiles are reproductions of editions produced by ULAE in the early 1960s. But none of the latter were offsets; they were all "proper" lithographs.

  All I can do is reiterate what has been stated by the publisher:

Tatyana Grosman started Telamon Editions Limited in 1970 as a commercial venture of Universal Limited Art Editions. It was closed upon her death in 1982. Among her initial projects was a facsimile catalogue of Jasper Johns prints published by ULAE. The format for the catalogue was 22 1/2 x 17 1/2 inches and was to be printed in an edition of 300 on the same paper as the original limited editions prints. A hand fed offset pressed was purchased in 1971 to proof and print the project. 13 facsimiles were printed on the hand-fed offset press by Bill Goldston and James V. Smith under the supervision of the artist before 1982 when the it was abandoned for the complete catalogue raisonne published in 1993. Other than their size, the paper, color and printing sequence match the original edition.

Note where it states these 13 facsimilies were printed on a hand fed offset press by Bill Goldston and James V. Simth
Please clarify what you are talking about so that we may all understand. Thanks.

He is stating in reference to the tariffs and stating that these prints are offset prints meaning not direct impressions from the stone like an original lithograph would be.

[met]

Jul 25, 2017 4:19:47 GMT 1 Poly Mindset said:

Jul 25, 2017 1:50:31 GMT 1 met said:

Besides differentiating these prints from the Johns original editions, the express references to "facsimile" and "offset" provide transparency and reduce confusion about what they actually are.

Without clear labelling, unscrupulous individuals might also look to exaggerate, obfuscate or otherwise try to pass off the facsimiles as something they're not.

That said, confusion hasn't been eliminated entirely, as is clear from this thread.

___________


In terms of the differences with the original editions, there's also the Telamon Editions logo appearing within the images of the facsimiles (or at least some of them).

Separately, it is a serious oversight to omit one of the most crucial distinctions: printmaking technique. The facsimiles are reproductions of editions produced by ULAE in the early 1960s. But none of the latter were offsets; they were all "proper" lithographs.

OK, I don't really understand what you are trying to say. In regards to your statement: "Separately, it is a serious oversight to omit one of the most crucial distinctions: printmaking technique. The facsimiles are reproductions of editions produced by ULAE in the early 1960s. But none of the latter were offsets; they were all "proper" lithographs.

  All I can do is reiterate what has been stated by the publisher:

Tatyana Grosman started Telamon Editions Limited in 1970 as a commercial venture of Universal Limited Art Editions. It was closed upon her death in 1982. Among her initial projects was a facsimile catalogue of Jasper Johns prints published by ULAE. The format for the catalogue was 22 1/2 x 17 1/2 inches and was to be printed in an edition of 300 on the same paper as the original limited editions prints. A hand fed offset pressed was purchased in 1971 to proof and print the project. 13 facsimiles were printed on the hand-fed offset press by Bill Goldston and James V. Smith under the supervision of the artist before 1982 when the it was abandoned for the complete catalogue raisonne published in 1993. Other than their size, the paper, color and printing sequence match the original edition.

Note where it states these 13 facsimilies were printed on a hand fed offset press by Bill Goldston and James V. Simth
Please clarify what you are talking about so that we may all understand. Thanks.

You stated that, other than the facsimile disclaimer, the only differences between the original Jasper Johns print editions and the facsimiles are (i) the sizes, and (ii) the facsimiles not being signed and numbered.

My point was this is incorrect. It's misleading through omission. From your follow-up post, I get the impression you've been sidetracked by poor drafting on the ULAE website.

Leaving aside the Telamon Editions logo, the critical divide is printmaking technique. As emphasised by Pattycakes early on in this thread, the original prints are lithographs, whereas the facsimiles are offset lithographs.

There's no real comparison between lithography and offset lithography. One is an artisanal process, creating new imagery. The other is photomechanical, most often with a view to reproducing previously-existing imagery (in this case, the original prints from the early 1960s).

[If the distinction between the two isn't clear, we're talking about disparity in labour-intensity, time required, skill set and experience needed, and requisite involvement of the artist. This includes taking into account the fact that lithographic prints (contrary to offset lithographs) will be mirror images of the artwork produced on the stone or plate. And so, with lithography, the artist also needs to think in terms of image reversal while drawing or painting.]

[Rouen Cathedral]

Jul 25, 2017 8:11:38 GMT 1 met said:

Jul 25, 2017 4:19:47 GMT 1 Poly Mindset said:

OK, I don't really understand what you are trying to say. In regards to your statement: "Separately, it is a serious oversight to omit one of the most crucial distinctions: printmaking technique. The facsimiles are reproductions of editions produced by ULAE in the early 1960s. But none of the latter were offsets; they were all "proper" lithographs.

  All I can do is reiterate what has been stated by the publisher:

Tatyana Grosman started Telamon Editions Limited in 1970 as a commercial venture of Universal Limited Art Editions. It was closed upon her death in 1982. Among her initial projects was a facsimile catalogue of Jasper Johns prints published by ULAE. The format for the catalogue was 22 1/2 x 17 1/2 inches and was to be printed in an edition of 300 on the same paper as the original limited editions prints. A hand fed offset pressed was purchased in 1971 to proof and print the project. 13 facsimiles were printed on the hand-fed offset press by Bill Goldston and James V. Smith under the supervision of the artist before 1982 when the it was abandoned for the complete catalogue raisonne published in 1993. Other than their size, the paper, color and printing sequence match the original edition.

Note where it states these 13 facsimilies were printed on a hand fed offset press by Bill Goldston and James V. Simth
Please clarify what you are talking about so that we may all understand. Thanks.

You stated that, other than the facsimile disclaimer, the only differences between the original Jasper Johns print editions and the facsimiles are (i) the sizes, and (ii) the facsimiles not being signed and numbered.

My point was this is incorrect. It's misleading through omission. From your follow-up post, I get the impression you've been sidetracked by poor drafting on the ULAE website.

Leaving aside the Telamon Editions logo, the critical divide is printmaking technique. As emphasised by Pattycakes early on in this thread, the original prints are lithographs, whereas the facsimiles are offset lithographs.

There's no real comparison between lithography and offset lithography. One is an artisanal process, creating new imagery. The other is photomechanical, most often with a view to reproducing previously-existing imagery (in this case, the original prints from the early 1960s).

[If the distinction between the two isn't clear, we're talking about disparity in labour-intensity, time required, skill set and experience needed, and requisite involvement of the artist. This includes taking into account the fact that lithographic prints (contrary to offset lithographs) will be mirror images of the artwork produced on the stone or plate. And so, with lithography, the artist also needs to think in terms of image reversal while drawing or painting.]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Here's what you are omitting. The fact that jasper johns the creator of these images demanded to go visit this specific machine and then continue to use it for his images and his 'official' art.

You are right the process is different. But it's still a process the original artisan utilized, enjoyed and approved. A bunch of 'art collectors/investors' trying to discredit the process of making the art means nothing. Why? Because the actual artist/ artisan / one of greatest artists of past 100 years celebrated that process and used it for his 'official' art...

[spirit]

Jul 25, 2017 11:44:41 GMT 1 Rouen Cathedral said:

Jul 25, 2017 8:11:38 GMT 1 met said:

You stated that, other than the facsimile disclaimer, the only differences between the original Jasper Johns print editions and the facsimiles are (i) the sizes, and (ii) the facsimiles not being signed and numbered.

My point was this is incorrect. It's misleading through omission. From your follow-up post, I get the impression you've been sidetracked by poor drafting on the ULAE website.

Leaving aside the Telamon Editions logo, the critical divide is printmaking technique. As emphasised by Pattycakes early on in this thread, the original prints are lithographs, whereas the facsimiles are offset lithographs.

There's no real comparison between lithography and offset lithography. One is an artisanal process, creating new imagery. The other is photomechanical, most often with a view to reproducing previously-existing imagery (in this case, the original prints from the early 1960s).

[If the distinction between the two isn't clear, we're talking about disparity in labour-intensity, time required, skill set and experience needed, and requisite involvement of the artist. This includes taking into account the fact that lithographic prints (contrary to offset lithographs) will be mirror images of the artwork produced on the stone or plate. And so, with lithography, the artist also needs to think in terms of image reversal while drawing or painting.]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Here's what you are omitting. The fact that jasper johns the creator of these images demanded to go visit this specific machine and then continue to use it for his images and his 'official' art.

You are right the process is different. But it's still a process the original artisan utilized, enjoyed and approved. A bunch of 'art collectors/investors' trying to discredit the process of making the art means nothing. Why? Because the actual artist/ artisan / one of greatest artists of past 100 years celebrated that process and used it for his 'official' art...

Exactly. I think you are both right.

The print process used for originals these were based on (lithography) and the process used for the facsimiles (offset lithography) was different.

However, as discussed in one of the videos posted previously, artists generally embraced the introduction of offset lithography as it meant they did not have to draw everything backwards/in a mirror which as you can imagine was a huge PITA.

So although John's used lithography for the originals of these facsimiles, originals he produced after this time were produced using offset lithography.

[rockbeer]

Met, you might find it interesting to watch the video posted earlier on this thread featuring Bill Goldston of ULAE discussing precisely the issues you're talking about.

He explicitly mentions Johns' delight at discovering a lithography process existed which he could use without having to work in reverse, and according to Goldston, from the point at which Johns discovered the offset press that was pretty much all he used.

As Goldston also points out, it's up to artists to make creative use of the tools at their disposal. One process isn't inherently more creative than the other simply because it can't be also applied to mass production. Furthermore, the mere fact of offset prints being offset (i.e. twice reversed) has absolutely no bearing on the plate production techniques used (which may or may not be photographic), the edition, the stock, or the artist's input into the printing process.

ULAE isn't some backstreet print shop where Johns knocked out a few lithos once upon a time. The Museum of Modern Art acquires the first impression of every edition they publish - that fact alone gives the Telamon editions credibility. Johns and Goldston have effectively collaborated on the production of every print he's produced at ULAE in half a century. It's clear from the video that Johns was closely involved in the production of the Telamon editions, and given this working relationship it's inconceivable that the Telamon prints would now be for sale without his active approval.

[rosac]

Jul 25, 2017 12:04:36 GMT 1 rockbeer said:

Met, you might find it interesting to watch the video posted earlier on this thread featuring Bill Goldston of ULAE discussing precisely the issues you're talking about.

He explicitly mentions Johns' delight at discovering a lithography process existed which he could use without having to work in reverse, and according to Goldston, from the point at which Johns discovered the offset press that was pretty much all he used.

As Goldston also points out, it's up to artists to make creative use of the tools at their disposal. One process isn't inherently more creative than the other simply because it can't be also applied to mass production. Furthermore, the mere fact of offset prints being offset (i.e. twice reversed) has absolutely no bearing on the plate production techniques used (which may or may not be photographic), the edition, the stock, or the artist's input into the printing process.

ULAE isn't some backstreet print shop where Johns knocked out a few lithos once upon a time. The Museum of Modern Art acquires the first impression of every edition they publish - that fact alone gives the Telamon editions credibility. Johns and Goldston have effectively collaborated on the production of every print he's produced at ULAE in half a century. It's clear from the video that Johns was closely involved in the production of the Telamon editions, and given this working relationship it's inconceivable that the Telamon prints would now be for sale without his active approval.

couldn't have said it any better myself. 

[Poesia]

Jul 25, 2017 12:11:39 GMT 1 rosac said:

Jul 25, 2017 12:04:36 GMT 1 rockbeer said:

Met, you might find it interesting to watch the video posted earlier on this thread featuring Bill Goldston of ULAE discussing precisely the issues you're talking about.

He explicitly mentions Johns' delight at discovering a lithography process existed which he could use without having to work in reverse, and according to Goldston, from the point at which Johns discovered the offset press that was pretty much all he used.

As Goldston also points out, it's up to artists to make creative use of the tools at their disposal. One process isn't inherently more creative than the other simply because it can't be also applied to mass production. Furthermore, the mere fact of offset prints being offset (i.e. twice reversed) has absolutely no bearing on the plate production techniques used (which may or may not be photographic), the edition, the stock, or the artist's input into the printing process.

ULAE isn't some backstreet print shop where Johns knocked out a few lithos once upon a time. The Museum of Modern Art acquires the first impression of every edition they publish - that fact alone gives the Telamon editions credibility. Johns and Goldston have effectively collaborated on the production of every print he's produced at ULAE in half a century. It's clear from the video that Johns was closely involved in the production of the Telamon editions, and given this working relationship it's inconceivable that the Telamon prints would now be for sale without his active approval.

couldn't have said it any better myself. 

I think you are being a little defensive and maybe missed Met's reason for mentioning the difference. He was not discrediting these prints in any way or laying an opinion on there merit. he simply stated what they were exactly in relation to the import fees. As it clearly states the difference in fee from each printed method. And that the tariff is incorrect to how many are reading it. I think he clearly describes what exactly these prints are and what they are not. We dont hear him stating any opinion on the relevance of the edition in relation to Johns or his career, or influence.

[Matt]

This thread is by far the most (dare i say only) interesting thing on here at the moment.

The discussion is great, the subject fascinating, covering so many aspects of art and multiples, both the facts and the gray areas.

The participants are polite mostly, thorough in their explanations, clear about their intentions, which makes it such a worthwhile read

I wish this whole place was like this...

I am receiving all my JJ prints tomorrow, they will be framed simply and handed out as gifts for family and friends. I can't wait

[Rouen Cathedral]

Jul 25, 2017 12:23:52 GMT 1 Poesia said:

Jul 25, 2017 12:11:39 GMT 1 rosac said:

couldn't have said it any better myself. 

I think you are being a little defensive and maybe missed Met's reason for mentioning the difference. He was not discrediting these prints in any way or laying an opinion on there merit. he simply stated what they were exactly in relation to the import fees. As it clearly states the difference in fee from each printed method. And that the tariff is incorrect to how many are reading it. I think he clearly describes what exactly these prints are and what they are not. We dont hear him stating any opinion on the relevance of the edition in relation to Johns or his career, or influence.

So are you telling me Johns 'offical' later offset prints don't count either?

[Poesia]

Jul 25, 2017 12:36:18 GMT 1 Rouen Cathedral said:

Jul 25, 2017 12:23:52 GMT 1 Poesia said:

I think you are being a little defensive and maybe missed Met's reason for mentioning the difference. He was not discrediting these prints in any way or laying an opinion on there merit. he simply stated what they were exactly in relation to the import fees. As it clearly states the difference in fee from each printed method. And that the tariff is incorrect to how many are reading it. I think he clearly describes what exactly these prints are and what they are not. We dont hear him stating any opinion on the relevance of the edition in relation to Johns or his career, or influence.

So are you telling me Johns 'offical' later offset prints don't count either?

Again just take some time to read what he said. I dont hear anyone stating anything to your point about Johns. I cant say anything about the relevance or influence these prints had on Johns, I have the same information as everyone else watched the same video. I think we have clarified multiple times the facts. I am not one to guess or push my opinion on what these could or could have meant to the artist as I wasnt there and I havent read anything stating for or against that argument. So No I am not telling you anything of the sort.

[Rouen Cathedral]

Jul 25, 2017 12:41:25 GMT 1 Poesia said:

Jul 25, 2017 12:36:18 GMT 1 Rouen Cathedral said:

So are you telling me Johns 'offical' later offset prints don't count either?

Again just take some time to read what he said. I dont hear anyone stating anything to your point about Johns. I cant say anything about the relevance or influence these prints had on Johns, I have the same information as everyone else watched the same video. I think we have clarified multiple times the facts. I am not one to guess or push my opinion on what these could or could have meant to the artist as I wasnt there and I havent read anything stating for or against that argument. So No I am not telling you anything of the sort.

I'm now talking about the import fees.

[met]

Jul 25, 2017 12:04:36 GMT 1 rockbeer said:

Met, you might find it interesting to watch the video posted earlier on this thread featuring Bill Goldston of ULAE discussing precisely the issues you're talking about.

He explicitly mentions Johns' delight at discovering a lithography process existed which he could use without having to work in reverse, and according to Goldston, from the point at which Johns discovered the offset press that was pretty much all he used.

As Goldston also points out, it's up to artists to make creative use of the tools at their disposal. One process isn't inherently more creative than the other simply because it can't be also applied to mass production. Furthermore, the mere fact of offset prints being offset (i.e. twice reversed) has absolutely no bearing on the plate production techniques used (which may or may not be photographic), the edition, the stock, or the artist's input into the printing process.

ULAE isn't some backstreet print shop where Johns knocked out a few lithos once upon a time. The Museum of Modern Art acquires the first impression of every edition they publish - that fact alone gives the Telamon editions credibility. Johns and Goldston have effectively collaborated on the production of every print he's produced at ULAE in half a century. It's clear from the video that Johns was closely involved in the production of the Telamon editions, and given this working relationship it's inconceivable that the Telamon prints would now be for sale without his active approval.

I had watched that excellent video, and read through this entire thread. And, to be clear, as with Rauschenberg, De Kooning, Pollock and other big namess of their generation, I'm familiar with Johns' work — including the different mediums and processes he used and continues to use.

On the basis of your above post, there's no material disagreement between us.

But that post is also a straw man. As referred to by Poesia, you are arguing issues I never raised.

My comments were specifically on the distinctions between (i) the original print editions by Johns in the early 1960s and (ii) the later reproductions of those original prints (i.e. the facsimiles) — because Poly Mindset had overlooked the key difference of lithograph vs offset lithograph.

A separate but related point was that — based on current, applicable rules and regulations in the UK — the ULAE facsimiles (having been produced indirectly, via a photomechanical process) are expressly excluded from the 5% reduced rate of import VAT.

If you believe anything I've stated is false or misleading, I'm happy to discuss.

[Rouen Cathedral]

Jul 25, 2017 16:48:12 GMT 1 met said:

Jul 25, 2017 12:04:36 GMT 1 rockbeer said:

Met, you might find it interesting to watch the video posted earlier on this thread featuring Bill Goldston of ULAE discussing precisely the issues you're talking about.

He explicitly mentions Johns' delight at discovering a lithography process existed which he could use without having to work in reverse, and according to Goldston, from the point at which Johns discovered the offset press that was pretty much all he used.

As Goldston also points out, it's up to artists to make creative use of the tools at their disposal. One process isn't inherently more creative than the other simply because it can't be also applied to mass production. Furthermore, the mere fact of offset prints being offset (i.e. twice reversed) has absolutely no bearing on the plate production techniques used (which may or may not be photographic), the edition, the stock, or the artist's input into the printing process.

ULAE isn't some backstreet print shop where Johns knocked out a few lithos once upon a time. The Museum of Modern Art acquires the first impression of every edition they publish - that fact alone gives the Telamon editions credibility. Johns and Goldston have effectively collaborated on the production of every print he's produced at ULAE in half a century. It's clear from the video that Johns was closely involved in the production of the Telamon editions, and given this working relationship it's inconceivable that the Telamon prints would now be for sale without his active approval.

I had watched that excellent video, and read through this entire thread. And, to be clear, as with Rauschenberg, De Kooning, Pollock and other big namess of their generation, I'm familiar with Johns' work — including the different mediums and processes he used and continues to use.

On the basis of your above post, there's no material disagreement between us.

But that post is also a straw man. As referred to by Poesia, you are arguing issues I never raised.

My comments were specifically on the distinctions between (i) the original print editions by Johns in the early 1960s and (ii) the later reproductions of those original prints (i.e. the facsimiles) — because Poly Mindset had overlooked the key difference of lithograph vs offset lithograph.

A separate but related point was that — based on current, applicable rules and regulations in the UK — the ULAE facsimiles (having been produced indirectly, via a photomechanical process) are expressly excluded from the 5% reduced rate of import VAT.

If you believe anything I've stated is false or misleading, I'm happy to discuss.

So in your argument the later 'official' Johns offset lithos also do not qualify for the 5% since they were of same process?

[Poly Mindset]

Jul 25, 2017 16:48:12 GMT 1 met said:

Jul 25, 2017 12:04:36 GMT 1 rockbeer said:

Met, you might find it interesting to watch the video posted earlier on this thread featuring Bill Goldston of ULAE discussing precisely the issues you're talking about.

He explicitly mentions Johns' delight at discovering a lithography process existed which he could use without having to work in reverse, and according to Goldston, from the point at which Johns discovered the offset press that was pretty much all he used.

As Goldston also points out, it's up to artists to make creative use of the tools at their disposal. One process isn't inherently more creative than the other simply because it can't be also applied to mass production. Furthermore, the mere fact of offset prints being offset (i.e. twice reversed) has absolutely no bearing on the plate production techniques used (which may or may not be photographic), the edition, the stock, or the artist's input into the printing process.

ULAE isn't some backstreet print shop where Johns knocked out a few lithos once upon a time. The Museum of Modern Art acquires the first impression of every edition they publish - that fact alone gives the Telamon editions credibility. Johns and Goldston have effectively collaborated on the production of every print he's produced at ULAE in half a century. It's clear from the video that Johns was closely involved in the production of the Telamon editions, and given this working relationship it's inconceivable that the Telamon prints would now be for sale without his active approval.

I had watched that excellent video, and read through this entire thread. And, to be clear, as with Rauschenberg, De Kooning, Pollock and other big namess of their generation, I'm familiar with Johns' work — including the different mediums and processes he used and continues to use.

On the basis of your above post, there's no material disagreement between us.

But that post is also a straw man. As referred to by Poesia , you are arguing issues I never raised.

My comments were specifically on the distinctions between (i) the original print editions by Johns in the early 1960s and (ii) the later reproductions of those original prints (i.e. the facsimiles) — because Poly Mindset had overlooked the key difference of lithograph vs offset lithograph.

A separate but related point was that — based on current, applicable rules and regulations in the UK — the ULAE facsimiles (having been produced indirectly, via a photomechanical process) are expressly excluded from the 5% reduced rate of import VAT.

If you believe anything I've stated is false or misleading, I'm happy to discuss.

First off all Met, thank you for clarifying your point for me. I understand now exactly the point you are making. To all other members, Met is just defining why these prints don't qualify for the lower VAT and it's clear that he's not making any argument as to the value, historically and monetarily of the prints. Although I disagree with the way the VAT system is defining definitions I think we all know that most governments are going to try to screw you whenever they can.
Additionally, point taken that the offset press was a turning point in the way Johns produced his prints. I think it's just progress in motion which to me is understandable. However, I don't think offset lithography completely removes the "artisan" from the process and I know nobody is really arguing that point, so let's not all get crazy. Although Johns may or may not have had anything to do with the making of the plates there is no denying that he was overseeing and I'm sure had input as to the whole process...after all they were his prints. I personally think he probably had a lot to do with the making of these prints for the simple fact that this was his jumping of point and this offset process had a complete influence on the way he would move forward with the rest of his career.
Bringing us to Murrke03's exact point. If from the initial point of these prints, where the offset process was introduced to Johns and moving forward utilizing offset lithography for the rest of his official lithos does this then remove his official lithos from a discounted VAT and if not then how can one reason that these prints cannot receive a discounted VAT because they were done the exact same way. The only distinguishing factor is the disclaimer and the size and not being signed and numbered...... Fascinating argument, isn't it?
Now, the elephant in the room is, who does Met really work for?? Just kidding. I think the proof is going to be in the pudding as they say and when all is said and done, I as well as many members here would love to know if anyone after arguing their point as logically as it is with the government, receives a refund. Once again my personal opinion is that logic doesn't run our governments, money does. Please keep us posted. 

[Poly Mindset]

Jul 25, 2017 18:19:43 GMT 1 topboy said:

I think you are wrong. I don't no why,I just want you to explain you points a little more

?? When you figure out why, rephrase and concisely make your point with some relevance please. Thank you.

[rockbeer]

It wasn't my intention to sound defensive - though of course that doesn't mean I didn't. My intention was to examine the claim that there can be no real comparison between the two lithography processes in question. Listening to Goldston describing the painstaking process of working with the handfed press, managing the colour sequences, etc, to accomplish sometimes just four prints a day made it clear (to me, at least) that producing art editions on the offset press was a properly 'artisanal' process.

As far as this relates to the applicable duty rates, I imagine that the type of process Goldston was talking about is as far as it could be from what the framers of the duty regulations had in mind.

By the letter of the regulations, as others have said, neither the Telamon prints nor, presumably, the majority of Johns' later lithographs qualify for the rebate. But I would argue that they do qualify according to their spirit, which is not to penalise importers of original works of art. Photomechanical processes are presumably cited specifically to avoid the low rate being claimed on cheap mass-produced reproduction prints. I don't imagine the intent was to exclude works such as these - it seems more likely that the framers of the regulations didn't fully consider the existence of or implications for works such as this, though obviously this is total speculation.

The regulations are clumsy, and fail to address a plethora of issues around creative works. For example, what would be the status of hand-pulled screen prints where the screens are produced by a technician using photo-sensitive emulsion and light box? That scenario is commonplace, and is exactly analogous to what we're discussing here, but I imagine few would argue that screen prints shouldn't qualify for the discount.

Basically, the regulations fail to take account of unanticipated creative uses of technology in order to accomplish artistic ends. So it seems to me we're trying to clarify whether people should comply with their letter or their apparent intent.