[rbt]

Anyone have thoughts on pigment/inkjet prints versus the other more traditional techniques (screen print, silkscreen, etching, etc)? Would you value a pigment print less than the other methods? Appreciate any insights. Seems a lot of artists are doing pigment prints costing thousands of dollars (such as the Almine Rech editions and some recent Avant Arte editions). 

[Happy Shopper]

For some images/artist styles, pigment prints offer the best method. (Photos, or photo realistic paintings, for example)
But for other artists it's just a lazy money grab.

[Londown 01]

Exactly. Every technique has its legitimacy when used right.*
And as this forum is very much concerned with the market: the price should be adjusted accordingly to the technique/ use of technique.


*which today is seldom the case

[churchwood]

Apr 18, 2024 14:07:35 GMT 1 Happy Shopper said:

For some images/artist styles, pigment prints offer the best method. (Photos, or photo realistic paintings, for example)
But for other artists it's just a lazy money grab.

Totally agree.

Someone like Kevin Peterson for example - his work would be impossible to produce in an edition unless it was photographed and then printed digitally - I think he (gallery) use to use Static Medium (that could be totally wrong) and I watched a video ages ago of the process - setting up the camera in studio conditions, lighting etc etc.

But for those editions that could be screen printed but are produced digitally instead - I would have said a fair amount of work is saved by just pushing the old "print" button as opposed to running multiple screens, then letting them dry between layers, then applying layer after layer through the process.  much more labour intensive and time consuming.

maybe it's a placebo affect but a screenprint just seems to feel more premium too

[Atom Gallery]

I think its important to consider the difference between an original print and a reproduction. Someone creates a painting, a print edition is made of that image, they are reproductions, the original is the painting. Someone creates a screenprint, on a computer or drawing on 'trugrain' or painting directly onto the screens, the resulting prints are original prints, there is no original. Giclee, pigment call it what you will is a brilliant method of reproduction, better than CMYK litho printing, it is also very cost effective, and as mentioned here the results are often over priced.
In my opinion it seems rather pointless to spend a massive amount of time and effort reproducing a printing with screenprinting when a giclee will do it better and cheaper. giclee also can be used to create original prints, when the image was created on a computer, often an ipad, Hockers for instance.

[cemltz]

Apr 18, 2024 23:25:58 GMT 1 Atom Gallery said:

I think its important to consider the difference between an original print and a reproduction. Someone creates a painting, a print edition is made of that image, they are reproductions, the original is the painting. Someone creates a screenprint, on a computer or drawing on 'trugrain' or painting directly onto the screens, the resulting prints are original prints, there is no original. Giclee, pigment call it what you will is a brilliant method of reproduction, better than CMYK litho printing, it is also very cost effective, and as mentioned here the results are often over priced.
In my opinion it seems rather pointless to spend a massive amount of time and effort reproducing a printing with screenprinting when a giclee will do it better and cheaper. giclee also can be used to create original prints, when the image was created on a computer, often an ipad, Hockers for instance.

I dunno. I think the fact that making a good screenprint can be hard and costly often times makes the piece. George Condo's latest "reproductions", for example...

[LJCal]

Obviously prefer traditional print methods where possible, but obviously doesn't fit all artists practise.