[Pattycakes]

What art I have on the walls? You can ask but I'm not telling you

[Rouen Cathedral]

Jun 23, 2017 0:03:49 GMT 1 mla said:

Jun 23, 2017 0:02:30 GMT 1 Rouen Cathedral said:

May I ask what type of 'art' you have on the wall?

Shouldn't you be off somewhere whining about Banksy?

Can't answer a question?

[mla]

Jun 23, 2017 0:10:01 GMT 1 Rouen Cathedral said:

Jun 23, 2017 0:03:49 GMT 1 mla said:

Shouldn't you be off somewhere whining about Banksy?

Can't answer a question?

The answer lacks relevance.

[Poesia]

Jun 22, 2017 23:38:16 GMT 1 whiteside said:

Jun 22, 2017 23:26:38 GMT 1 Poesia said:

I suspect that the reason they didn't sell quickly and sat for sale was not because of the cost but rather that they hadn't got details out to the right market. As soon as the details reached a forum of pretty clued-up people they have (at least in the case of several prints) sold out in days. I don't believe the members of this forum are, on the whole, uninformed but there remains a lot of positivity around these prints.

I dont think this forum is uninformed but I was around for Outis and Ive seen things pic up steam fast for far less. Its the ULAE with a rich history I am sure collectors come in their website all the time, I dont think they lack exposure. But they might lack a different type of collector that this forum brought them I could guess. I think its great to me I would much rather see Hype involving Jasper Johns than some other unworthy street artist who stole his style from someone else. Nothing negative here, just making observations.

[Rouen Cathedral]

Jun 23, 2017 0:15:58 GMT 1 mla said:

Jun 23, 2017 0:10:01 GMT 1 Rouen Cathedral said:

Can't answer a question?

The answer lacks relevance.

No it doesn't. You called people clowns for buying these because they like them.

Prove to us that what you buy is different.



Never mind.... saw you wanted Kaws prints at some point. Lol talk about being a clown!

[Poesia]

Jun 22, 2017 23:59:06 GMT 1 gmidd said:

Jun 22, 2017 23:45:25 GMT 1 whiteside said:

I'm inexperienced in these matters but can you explain - how are they distinctly different? In what way does the image differ on the page? (given that it is the same paper stock).

I suspect, given the timings (1975) and the fact that it us ULAE, that it wasn't a rubber roller.

Also...this is directly from the site "Other than their size, the paper, color and printing sequence match the original edition" so, other than the size they're pretty damn close. Also, these were not printed on a modern offset printer that's typically used for cheap posters. Definitely not expecting them to be worth a ton, but to say they're "not prints" is kind of ridiculous.

These are not prints regardless of what press they were printed on, or what type of paper, they are reproductions of a print which is an actual work of art. Its standard definition and clearly stated on the reproduction. The title of this thread should be changed for fear of confusion.

[Dust Buster]

Jun 23, 2017 0:22:23 GMT 1 Poesia said:

Jun 22, 2017 23:59:06 GMT 1 gmidd said:

Also...this is directly from the site "Other than their size, the paper, color and printing sequence match the original edition" so, other than the size they're pretty damn close. Also, these were not printed on a modern offset printer that's typically used for cheap posters. Definitely not expecting them to be worth a ton, but to say they're "not prints" is kind of ridiculous.

These are not prints regardless of what press they were printed on, or what type of paper, they are reproductions of a print which is an actual work of art. Its standard definition and clearly stated on the reproduction. The title of this thread should be changed for fear of confusion.

What do you call something that's created in Adobe Illustrator and then handed off to someone to flash onto screens and ink onto paper? Is that a print?

[Poesia]

Jun 23, 2017 1:21:08 GMT 1 Dust Buster said:

Jun 23, 2017 0:22:23 GMT 1 Poesia said:

These are not prints regardless of what press they were printed on, or what type of paper, they are reproductions of a print which is an actual work of art. Its standard definition and clearly stated on the reproduction. The title of this thread should be changed for fear of confusion.

What do you call something that's created in Adobe Illustrator and then handed off to someone to flash onto screens and ink onto paper? Is that a print?

You can google the difference, here is just one that I found.

Lets start with a definition of the terms "reproduction" and "print". Merriam Webster's little dictionary defines "reproduction" as:
1 : the act or process of reproducing
2 : something reproduced : COPY
synonyms REPRODUCTION, DUPLICATE, COPY, FACSIMILE, REPLICA mean a thing made to closely resemble another. REPRODUCTION implies an exact or close imitation of an existing thing (reproductions from the museum's furniture collection). DUPLICATE implies a double or counterpart exactly corresponding to another thing (a duplicate of a house key). COPY applies especially to one of a number of things reproduced mechanically (printed a thousand copies of the gicleé). FACSIMILE suggests a close reproduction often of graphic matter that may differ in scale (a facsimile of a rare book). REPLICA implies the exact reproduction of a particular item in all details (a replica of the Mayflower) but not always in the same scale (miniature replicas of classic cars).

and, the difinition for "print" is:
(1) : a copy made by printing (2) : a reproduction of an original work of art (as a painting) made by a photomechanical process (3) : an original work of art (as a woodcut, etching, or lithograph) intended for graphic reproduction and produced by or under the supervision of the artist who designed it.


Ok, from just this we can see that a print can be a reproduction, but a reproduction may not necessarily be a print. This is where the terms start to vary. ANYTIME a piece of art is copied by photomechanical means, it is a "reproduction". It doesn't matter if the process has a fancy sounding name, like "giclee" (which literally means "ink droplets"), or if it has a cheap sounding name like "photo copy", because the are basically the same thing. Both are produced by the same means. Only the actual quality of the materials used will be the difference. (Sometimes there isn't much of a difference in those either.) Technically speaking a "reproduction" could be called a "print" because it is printed. I think that #3 best fits what a "print" really is.

"Prints" are, by definition (3), an original work of art (as a woodcut [block print], etching, silkscreen [serigraphy] or lithograph) intended for graphic reproduction and produced by or under the supervision of the artist who designed it. These are images that are produced to be multiples. They are most often done completely by the artist, and are most often done in small runs, or editions. (On all of the "prints" that I produce as serigraphs (silkscreen), the run, or edition, is 45) This is because the image starts to deteriorate after a certain numbers of "prints" are produced. Most "print" editions are less than 200.

Can "reproductions" be done in limited runs? Sure they can, but they don't have to be. "reproduction" runs are commonly well over the 200 number that most all "prints" editions fall under. Why? Because they can. "Reproduction" editions typically are in numbers of 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1200, 1500, ect. The more of the "reproductions" they produce, the more money they can make off of them. Many artists have been led to think that "reproductions" with fancy names (like giclee) should be rather expensive to produce, and thus should be collectibles

[Dust Buster]

Get what you're saying, these were listed as facsimile offset lithographs. For the sake of argument though, and I'm really not trying to be pedantic, I think one could argue that a work of art created in a digital medium and transferred to a physical one, cannot be a "print".

[Poly Mindset]

Jun 23, 2017 1:33:12 GMT 1 Poesia said:

Jun 23, 2017 1:21:08 GMT 1 Dust Buster said:

What do you call something that's created in Adobe Illustrator and then handed off to someone to flash onto screens and ink onto paper? Is that a print?

You can google the difference, here is just one that I found.

Lets start with a definition of the terms "reproduction" and "print". Merriam Webster's little dictionary defines "reproduction" as:
1 : the act or process of reproducing
2 : something reproduced : COPY
synonyms REPRODUCTION, DUPLICATE, COPY, FACSIMILE, REPLICA mean a thing made to closely resemble another. REPRODUCTION implies an exact or close imitation of an existing thing (reproductions from the museum's furniture collection). DUPLICATE implies a double or counterpart exactly corresponding to another thing (a duplicate of a house key). COPY applies especially to one of a number of things reproduced mechanically (printed a thousand copies of the gicleé). FACSIMILE suggests a close reproduction often of graphic matter that may differ in scale (a facsimile of a rare book). REPLICA implies the exact reproduction of a particular item in all details (a replica of the Mayflower) but not always in the same scale (miniature replicas of classic cars).

and, the difinition for "print" is:
(1) : a copy made by printing (2) : a reproduction of an original work of art (as a painting) made by a photomechanical process (3) : an original work of art (as a woodcut, etching, or lithograph) intended for graphic reproduction and produced by or under the supervision of the artist who designed it.


Ok, from just this we can see that a print can be a reproduction, but a reproduction may not necessarily be a print. This is where the terms start to vary. ANYTIME a piece of art is copied by photomechanical means, it is a "reproduction". It doesn't matter if the process has a fancy sounding name, like "giclee" (which literally means "ink droplets"), or if it has a cheap sounding name like "photo copy", because the are basically the same thing. Both are produced by the same means. Only the actual quality of the materials used will be the difference. (Sometimes there isn't much of a difference in those either.) Technically speaking a "reproduction" could be called a "print" because it is printed. I think that #3 best fits what a "print" really is.

"Prints" are, by definition (3), an original work of art (as a woodcut [block print], etching, silkscreen [serigraphy] or lithograph) intended for graphic reproduction and produced by or under the supervision of the artist who designed it. These are images that are produced to be multiples. They are most often done completely by the artist, and are most often done in small runs, or editions. (On all of the "prints" that I produce as serigraphs (silkscreen), the run, or edition, is 45) This is because the image starts to deteriorate after a certain numbers of "prints" are produced. Most "print" editions are less than 200.

Can "reproductions" be done in limited runs? Sure they can, but they don't have to be. "reproduction" runs are commonly well over the 200 number that most all "prints" editions fall under. Why? Because they can. "Reproduction" editions typically are in numbers of 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1200, 1500, ect. The more of the "reproductions" they produce, the more money they can make off of them. Many artists have been led to think that "reproductions" with fancy names (like giclee) should be rather expensive to produce, and thus should be collectibles

Are these not #1) A copy made by printing? I get your point but you can't be the king and list three definitions of what a print is and then say to the kingdom that it is only #3.
Secondly, Facsimile is in black and white on each of these images. A close reproduction that may differ in scale (which most of these do), by definition.
So, if you're saying that a facsimile cannot be a print I cannot agree with your logic. However, I understand and I think everyone here does that these are not an original print. That is clearly obvious by the difference in price. IMO this is an argument in symantics as it is left to the individual to determine if a facsimile can be considered a print. I believe it can.

[bruin]

I don't see how these aren't prints - they meet all the criteria of definitions (1), (2) and (3). They might not be limited edition first-runs, but even if they are facsimiles, which I accept, they are still relatively limited prints. And the focus on photomechanical means as a dividing line is absurd. Apparently, artists like Wade Guyton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Guyton) whose primary technique is the use of inkjet printers and has sold pieces for millions aren't really producing art but just reproductions.

Regardless, I'm fine these are facsimiles/expensive posters/prints - whatever people want to call them. Even Gerhard Richter lists facsimiles (which are unsigned and edition of 500 each) as part of his catalogue raisonne (https://www.gerhard-richter.com/en/art/prints). I bought two - 0-9, Flags III - because the prints look fantastic on high quality paper, the artist is important, and the publisher is well-regarded and clearly has direct ties to the artist. I'm under no illusions that these should be 90K plus like the original editions. But these are still relatively limited prints from a very reputable source.

[Poesia]

If you want to use the term Print then you must use Reproduction in front of it. Yes its a print as much as a newspaper is printed offset and a print, a poster is a print in the same breadth. Those fit the definition of a print but they dont fit the definition of a fine art print because there is no ownership. These are obviously prints off a press, but they are not fine art prints. I think many in years past have been duped to buy these reproductions as they were signed and numbered at times by the artists. Yet they were not originals and people were buying them as originals because the semantics of this terminology. Picasso, Dali, etc etc have huge catalogs of reproductions made exactly in the manner of the originals and some signed. Yet their is a big difference as we can see and that difference is huge in value. Which most know but I am not sure many were as informed what actually the difference was between a Print "Fine Art Print" vs a Reproduction Print which these are. Like I said the title of this thread needs to be changed to have a Reproduction in front of it for unsuspecting readers.

Found this Article. I think it was more prevalent in the 80's and 90's and in the news more than you here now. But you can see how easy it would be to get duped by the small terminology difference.

www.nytimes.com/1987/07/22/nyregion/fake-art-prints-big-business-getting-bigger.html?pagewanted=all

[maddoghoek100]

well the first mistake  was feeding the trolls

these are clearly prints, they are clearly being released by an authorized rights holder, the are not fake.  These are likely best equated with premium museum editions.  The Lichtenstein As I Opened Fire prints are probably a reasonable comp.  The Miro museum has two really nice ones available at the moment if there are Miro fans in the house.  Usually those editions benefit the museum and often were used to fund the acquisition.  For those realy interested in values, editions produced before the artists death usually carry a small premium over those produced after their death, as with the Lichtensteins.

They are nice items, they are mostly decorator pieces, but they are old, which gives them a nice little something in my mind and you could seeing them getting a little pop once he passes away.  I bought a flags.  I am going to drop it in a stock frame and hang it in my office along with a fairey open edition may day flag.

[d.r. perseus]

"well the first mistake was feeding the trolls"

Right. People disagree with the labeling of these and therefore they are "trolls". Does that make the OP a shill? damn the internet is stupid these days.

[Poly Mindset]

Jun 23, 2017 2:49:13 GMT 1 Poesia said:

If you want to use the term Print then you must use Reproduction in front of it. Yes its a print as much as a newspaper is printed offset and a print, a poster is a print in the same breadth. Those fit the definition of a print but they dont fit the definition of a fine art print because there is no ownership. These are obviously prints off a press, but they are not fine art prints. I think many in years past have been duped to buy these reproductions as they were signed and numbered at times by the artists. Yet they were not originals and people were buying them as originals because the semantics of this terminology. Picasso, Dali, etc etc have huge catalogs of reproductions made exactly in the manner of the originals and some signed. Yet their is a big difference as we can see and that difference is huge in value. Which most know but I am not sure many were as informed what actually the difference was between a Print "Fine Art Print" vs a Reproduction Print which these are. Like I said the title of this thread needs to be changed to have a Reproduction in front of it for unsuspecting readers.

Found this Article. I think it was more prevalent in the 80's and 90's and in the news more than you here now. But you can see how easy it would be to get duped by the small terminology difference.

www.nytimes.com/1987/07/22/nyregion/fake-art-prints-big-business-getting-bigger.html?pagewanted=all

I don't mean to be so contrary to your views but I think the title of this thread is fine the way it is and here's why. If any member was interested in these prints then they went to the ULAE site which was listed in the thread and on every one of these, the description lists them as a facsimile so I don't think anyone was duped as these being sold as "Fine Art Prints". Additionally, are we now suppose to list all signed/numbered pieces as Fine Art Prints whether prints or originals. If not, then why would there be the need to list pieces such as these as Reproduction Prints. These were listed with no intention of deception or malfeasance and I don't think there is a need to dummy down every description of every listing or thread. I think most members here have a certain level of intelligence and can decipher what is what. Please give us some credit. However, I do appreciate your thoughts regarding this matter. My feeling is you are underestimating most of the members here. I don't hold this against you as I know your post were done with the best of intentions and I really like the stimulating banter. Additionally, I like your "Fine Art" and wish you would post more of it.

[Deleted]

Let's not forget one important fact in all of this....today as of right this second JJ is a silent owner of this publishing house.....

[jp]

This has turned out to be quite an interesting thread. If there wasn't bickering of some sort, it wouldn't be the Banksy forum.

I don't think it matters if people call these prints or posters. Neither is fully accurate. These are pages of a book that never materialized. I like the fact that they were printed decades ago. As a photobook collector, I liken this to pieces of a first edition book that never made it to press.

Could ULAE print more of these today? I suppose so but then it would be a second printing, which is an important distinction. I don't think ULAE would do that anyway though.

People should just be happy that these were made available at all. Many artists would have had these destroyed. If you bought some, be happy for what they are. If you did not, no need to inject negativity on what is overall a very positive thread.

As a side note, Jasper Johns is a pretty big deal in modern art. There are 16 pages dedicated to his work in my "Art Since 1940: Strategies of being" book. We spent a week on Johns and Robert Rauschenberg in a modern art class I took years ago, before transitioning to British Pop (David Hockney). If anyone wants to read up on him, I recommend the book above, or I can just post the relevant pages here.

-JP

[Poesia]

Jun 23, 2017 4:00:46 GMT 1 Poly Mindset said:

Jun 23, 2017 2:49:13 GMT 1 Poesia said:

I don't mean to be so contrary to your views but I think the title of this thread is fine the way it is and here's why. If any member was interested in these prints then they went to the ULAE site which was listed in the thread and on every one of these, the description lists them as a facsimile so I don't think anyone was duped as these being sold as "Fine Art Prints". Additionally, are we now suppose to list all signed/numbered pieces as Fine Art Prints whether prints or originals. If not, then why would there be the need to list pieces such as these as Reproduction Prints. These were listed with no intention of deception or malfeasance and I don't think there is a need to dummy down every description of every listing or thread. I think most members here have a certain level of intelligence and can decipher what is what. Please give us some credit. However, I do appreciate your thoughts regarding this matter. My feeling is you are underestimating most of the members here. I don't hold this against you as I know your post were done with the best of intentions and I really like the stimulating banter. Additionally, I like your "Fine Art" and wish you would post more of it.

Haha, no worries I missed debating on this site, its always good back and forth. I can see your point I just made the comments as those that commented to correct people were hammered as being negative. I think they were valid points to make for all the other people reading that might not be posting or have questions. The great thing about the forum is these debates bring more information out instead of the normal banter of people maybe glossing over some of these differences. Also i didnt mean to troll as one other put it, and I never said these were fakes, I posted the article on how people sell these as originals. Also some artists actually signed and numbered these type of reproductions which I am sure is much more confusing. These reproductions seem to 100% on the up and up but some people starting to talk about he hype of auctions and possibly being worth more seemed like a good time to bring up the difference, in case someone might have not been as thorough as the rest of you.

As far as the thread I think anyone reading the last page compared to the first 6 will get more info than they care for.

[Pattycakes]

Rouen Cathedral You're a tiresome little troll aren't you.  

[rosac]

Resident keyboard warrior out in force with their silly comments 2 days on the bounce.

[rosac]

Firstly they are not posters. These prints were produced many years ago using proper printing techniques on quality paper for the purpose of a limited edition book. I'm certainly proud to hang a piece of johns on my wall. Ulae are the real deal. If I'd be happy to hang, a Christopher wool poster / Banksy sleazenation poster / Harland Miller poster then I'd certainly hang a johns. I (like many of you I'm sure) have art on my walls which costs less then the frame it's in, but is worth way much more to me. And my favourite thought provoking piece cost me $100. I'm actually not saying that these aren't worth anything because I do actually think that one day they might be. Ill be hanging 4 of these straightaway.

[bwilson]

Jun 23, 2017 6:19:09 GMT 1 @ai2bob said:

Jun 23, 2017 5:51:34 GMT 1 Pattycakes said:

Rouen Cathedral You're a tiresome little troll aren't you.  

Type of guy that got picked last on every sports team going ....

And you Alex are the type of kid that got picked on in school

[Howard Johnson]

Jun 22, 2017 23:57:12 GMT 1 d.r. perseus said:

Jun 22, 2017 23:48:19 GMT 1 derivitive said:

Who gives a f**kabout enjoying art if you can't profit from it...am I right?

This thread seemed to accelerate with the posting of the "nice" frame up that happened to sell for 1k plus at auction. Oh wait a 150$ print that sells for how much!?! JJ is a great artist but these fail to capture, for me, any of the magic I can go see from originals in Los Angeles museums. 0-9 or numbers is close though. However I don't believe these were snapped up by Johns fans. Hell even OP asked about his history when so many of JJ originals are down the street from him and accessible. Pure speculation by the majority is my bet.

Please do not insult my intelligence. Am I expected to be a expert on every major artist?. I'll never be. And that's the point. I was reading up on johns when I came across these prints. I thought they were pretty cool. Clear explanation, excellent provenance. Thought Id be a contributing member of this community and make a short post. Your right, I don't know much about johns, but I do live two blocks from the lacma, and I'd love a guided tour if your offering?



Thank you everyone else for all for the kind words! Please post your frame ups!!

[Ruggs]

Can't see what all the fuss is about here. From what i've read and seen the publisher has been very clear on the details of these prints. Great provenience and as transparent as it gets. Haven't got one yet but very tempted with either 'Target' or 'Hand'.

[Coach]

Jun 23, 2017 6:20:16 GMT 1 @ling said:

Jun 22, 2017 23:53:46 GMT 1 mla said:

If you think the love of the art is what's motivating people here, you are incredibly naive. 

People know exactly what they're buying here and what they are not. If you think money is what's motivating people to buy here then I'd have to say you are incredibly naive. Clown comment was unnecessary.

Well said. There's a difference of opinion here, which is just fine.

[Rouen Cathedral]

Jun 23, 2017 5:51:34 GMT 1 Pattycakes said:

Rouen Cathedral You're a tiresome little troll aren't you.  

You are one of the people coming in here trying to discredit someone for buying an image of art that they like.

[Happy Shopper]

Jun 23, 2017 12:03:32 GMT 1 @strattonoaks said:

I never heard anyone talking about Jasper Johns on this forum until these cheap posters came up. Except for the original poster of the thread, motivation? MONEY!

There's probably not been a show or print release, or his work printed on cushions or a skateboard... plus he's not Urban Art.

But yes, this forum is a lot about art as investment as well as enjoying it.

[Deleted]

 I think the prints are a very good buy.

 The definition of a facsimile, is an exact copy true to the original source.

 The prints would be OK if they were printed today by a printer not connected to Jasper Johns. What makes these prints desirable and unique is that they have been produced by the same people and printer which produced the original prints for Jasper Johns. Plus ULAE only makes art lithographs and prints in other mediums for selected artists.

    These John facsimiles, were produced with his authorisation and in the 70's.

Of course they are not described as prints or an edition so as not to confuse with the edition made for Jasper Johns.

 I would call these prints special and unique in their own way due to them being made by ULAE in a limited number plus due to their slight size difference from the edition made for Jasper Johns.

  ULAE does have some signed Jasper Johns prints available for sale at affordable prices (compared to some of the over priced prints by "urban artists" today ) www.ulae.com/jasperjohns/index.aspx


     I'm wondering what the reaction would be if say for example Modern Multiples announced one day they have some Banksy facsimile prints available for sale for a couple of hundred dollars each.

   

[Coach]

Jun 23, 2017 12:03:32 GMT 1 @strattonoaks said:

I never heard anyone talking about Jasper Johns on this forum until these cheap posters came up. Except for the original poster of the thread, motivation? MONEY!

Whilst no doubt some on here see this in terms of value, profit etc, as is often the case on this forum, I'm certain lots don't.
It is rarely helpful to generalise.
There are a huge number of artists that I follow, enjoy, read about etc that are not mentioned on this forum.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2017 0:19:29 GMT 1 Poesia said:

Jun 22, 2017 23:38:16 GMT 1 whiteside said:

I suspect that the reason they didn't sell quickly and sat for sale was not because of the cost but rather that they hadn't got details out to the right market. As soon as the details reached a forum of pretty clued-up people they have (at least in the case of several prints) sold out in days. I don't believe the members of this forum are, on the whole, uninformed but there remains a lot of positivity around these prints.

I dont think this forum is uninformed but I was around for Outis and Ive seen things pic up steam fast for far less. Its the ULAE with a rich history I am sure collectors come in their website all the time, I dont think they lack exposure. But they might lack a different type of collector that this forum brought them I could guess. I think its great to me I would much rather see Hype involving Jasper Johns than some other unworthy street artist who stole his style from someone else. Nothing negative here, just making observations.

 Of course there is a bunch of people on this  forum working together and using this forum purely to make money by hyping pushing up prices on here steering people towards certain artists they have a vested interest in. They know who they are and some have more than one forum i.d

 Some only bought the Johns facs to flip for a profit whilst i'm glad to say quite a few others bought the Johns facs for the art, the historical significance and the provenance which is as good as it gets that they hav ebeen produced by ULAE. The art itself and the connection to Johns makes the print enjoyable to live with on ones wall.