oneeye
New Member
Posts โข 900
Likes โข 83
July 2007
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by oneeye on Aug 25, 2007 19:39:08 GMT 1, Pull the trigger first then decide what you love later is certainly not the way to buy art, but when there's such a demand and a very limited supply, what can you do but lock it up?
Agreed on Deathstar...absolutely stellar!
Pull the trigger first then decide what you love later is certainly not the way to buy art, but when there's such a demand and a very limited supply, what can you do but lock it up?
Agreed on Deathstar...absolutely stellar!
|
|
rydal
New Member
Posts โข 109
Likes โข 3
October 2006
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by rydal on Aug 26, 2007 10:47:24 GMT 1, Don't get me wrong I love these images and was lucky enough to get a Pikachu but I'm a bit surprised to see giclees being so well received. Looking around this forum generally it is clear that many obviously regard giclees as inferior to screen prints or would only pay up to a certain price for a giclee. Why are people seeing these images differently and in fact are regarding ยฃ350+ as a great price for a giclee? Seems a bit of a turnaround.
Don't get me wrong I love these images and was lucky enough to get a Pikachu but I'm a bit surprised to see giclees being so well received. Looking around this forum generally it is clear that many obviously regard giclees as inferior to screen prints or would only pay up to a certain price for a giclee. Why are people seeing these images differently and in fact are regarding ยฃ350+ as a great price for a giclee? Seems a bit of a turnaround.
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by numusic on Aug 26, 2007 11:10:12 GMT 1, Don't get me wrong I love these images and was lucky enough to get a Pikachu but I'm a bit surprised to see giclees being so well received. Looking around this forum generally it is clear that many obviously regard giclees as inferior to screen prints or would only pay up to a certain price for a giclee. Why are people seeing these images differently and in fact are regarding ยฃ350+ as a great price for a giclee? Seems a bit of a turnaround.
I don't think there's a turnaround at all. It's a very low edition and Francis has been suitably hyped. I'm still of the opinion that Giclee is an inferior method and that when a new technology comes along to surpass it, and it will. Then it simply won't be used anymore. It's the 12" lazer disc of the print world IMO.
Don't get me wrong I love these images and was lucky enough to get a Pikachu but I'm a bit surprised to see giclees being so well received. Looking around this forum generally it is clear that many obviously regard giclees as inferior to screen prints or would only pay up to a certain price for a giclee. Why are people seeing these images differently and in fact are regarding ยฃ350+ as a great price for a giclee? Seems a bit of a turnaround. I don't think there's a turnaround at all. It's a very low edition and Francis has been suitably hyped. I'm still of the opinion that Giclee is an inferior method and that when a new technology comes along to surpass it, and it will. Then it simply won't be used anymore. It's the 12" lazer disc of the print world IMO.
|
|
Gentle Mental
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,826
Likes โข 863
May 2007
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by Gentle Mental on Aug 26, 2007 11:14:25 GMT 1, People are willing to pay lots: 900 for a neate giclee 4k for a micallef.
People are willing to pay lots: 900 for a neate giclee 4k for a micallef.
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by absyrd on Aug 26, 2007 11:37:46 GMT 1, I will NEVER understand why people even begin to compare giclee and screenprinting. They are two completely different processes and are used to reproduce completely different "types" of art.
There is NO WAY you'd get as good of a reproduction out of something as detailed as Ian Francis or Guy Denning with a screen. They are more fit for high-contrast, simplified images. Some people can get pretty nasty with layers, but the final product mostly bears significance in the process rather than the final product.
Appreciate the giclee for its aunthenticity to the original work and screenprinting for it being an art in itself. One is in no way "inferior" to the other.
The ORIGINAL IMAGE is what mostly dictates the process, so if you like that image, you'll take it in whatever form fits it best, right? If I work like Ian Francis or represented his interests, I'd recommend giclee on every piece I've seen from him so far.
I will NEVER understand why people even begin to compare giclee and screenprinting. They are two completely different processes and are used to reproduce completely different "types" of art.
There is NO WAY you'd get as good of a reproduction out of something as detailed as Ian Francis or Guy Denning with a screen. They are more fit for high-contrast, simplified images. Some people can get pretty nasty with layers, but the final product mostly bears significance in the process rather than the final product.
Appreciate the giclee for its aunthenticity to the original work and screenprinting for it being an art in itself. One is in no way "inferior" to the other.
The ORIGINAL IMAGE is what mostly dictates the process, so if you like that image, you'll take it in whatever form fits it best, right? If I work like Ian Francis or represented his interests, I'd recommend giclee on every piece I've seen from him so far.
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by finsburyparkranger on Aug 26, 2007 11:37:48 GMT 1, Don't get me wrong I love these images and was lucky enough to get a Pikachu but I'm a bit surprised to see giclees being so well received. Looking around this forum generally it is clear that many obviously regard giclees as inferior to screen prints or would only pay up to a certain price for a giclee. Why are people seeing these images differently and in fact are regarding ยฃ350+ as a great price for a giclee? Seems a bit of a turnaround. I don't think there's a turnaround at all. It's a very low edition and Francis has been suitably hyped. I'm still of the opinion that Giclee is an inferior method and that when a new technology comes along to surpass it, and it will. Then it simply won't be used anymore. It's the 12" lazer disc of the print world IMO.
Don't get me wrong I love these images and was lucky enough to get a Pikachu but I'm a bit surprised to see giclees being so well received. Looking around this forum generally it is clear that many obviously regard giclees as inferior to screen prints or would only pay up to a certain price for a giclee. Why are people seeing these images differently and in fact are regarding ยฃ350+ as a great price for a giclee? Seems a bit of a turnaround. I don't think there's a turnaround at all. It's a very low edition and Francis has been suitably hyped. I'm still of the opinion that Giclee is an inferior method and that when a new technology comes along to surpass it, and it will. Then it simply won't be used anymore. It's the 12" lazer disc of the print world IMO.
I think there is a turn around. Screen printing is great if you want an image with a very limited colour range. If you want a print that is not limited and uses the full spectrum of colour a giclee represents the best technology we have to do this. The result can be breathtaking. Screen printing represents a very old, albeit still fondly loved technology that just can't produce work of the same complexity a giclee can do. You can make giclee's unique if you wish, it just requires thought and care rather than the ad hoc uncertainties of result that a screen print produces. Giclee's will be improved upon and newer technolgy will be given a new name sometime in the future. just like the screen printing press was improved upon with a new technology called giclee.
Don't get me wrong I love these images and was lucky enough to get a Pikachu but I'm a bit surprised to see giclees being so well received. Looking around this forum generally it is clear that many obviously regard giclees as inferior to screen prints or would only pay up to a certain price for a giclee. Why are people seeing these images differently and in fact are regarding ยฃ350+ as a great price for a giclee? Seems a bit of a turnaround. I don't think there's a turnaround at all. It's a very low edition and Francis has been suitably hyped. I'm still of the opinion that Giclee is an inferior method and that when a new technology comes along to surpass it, and it will. Then it simply won't be used anymore. It's the 12" lazer disc of the print world IMO. Don't get me wrong I love these images and was lucky enough to get a Pikachu but I'm a bit surprised to see giclees being so well received. Looking around this forum generally it is clear that many obviously regard giclees as inferior to screen prints or would only pay up to a certain price for a giclee. Why are people seeing these images differently and in fact are regarding ยฃ350+ as a great price for a giclee? Seems a bit of a turnaround. I don't think there's a turnaround at all. It's a very low edition and Francis has been suitably hyped. I'm still of the opinion that Giclee is an inferior method and that when a new technology comes along to surpass it, and it will. Then it simply won't be used anymore. It's the 12" lazer disc of the print world IMO. I think there is a turn around. Screen printing is great if you want an image with a very limited colour range. If you want a print that is not limited and uses the full spectrum of colour a giclee represents the best technology we have to do this. The result can be breathtaking. Screen printing represents a very old, albeit still fondly loved technology that just can't produce work of the same complexity a giclee can do. You can make giclee's unique if you wish, it just requires thought and care rather than the ad hoc uncertainties of result that a screen print produces. Giclee's will be improved upon and newer technolgy will be given a new name sometime in the future. just like the screen printing press was improved upon with a new technology called giclee.
|
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by absyrd on Aug 26, 2007 11:40:48 GMT 1, Similar post at the exact same time.
Get out of my head, Finsbury, before I have to get the drill out.
Similar post at the exact same time.
Get out of my head, Finsbury, before I have to get the drill out.
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by jboy on Aug 26, 2007 11:48:24 GMT 1, I really question some people judgement sometimes - each to their own though.
Giclee is a posh word for Epson printout.
I really question some people judgement sometimes - each to their own though.
Giclee is a posh word for Epson printout.
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by finsburyparkranger on Aug 26, 2007 11:53:14 GMT 1, I really question some people judgement sometimes - each to their own though. Giclee is a posh word for Epson printout.
Then screen printing is a posh word for a rubber stamp.
I really question some people judgement sometimes - each to their own though. Giclee is a posh word for Epson printout. Then screen printing is a posh word for a rubber stamp.
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by jboy on Aug 26, 2007 11:54:23 GMT 1, I really question some people judgement sometimes - each to their own though. Giclee is a posh word for Epson printout. Then screen printing is a posh word for a rubber stamp.
Yeah but at least some effort has gone into it. Rather than hitting print and setting it to print 25 copies while you have a coffee and read the paper.
I really question some people judgement sometimes - each to their own though. Giclee is a posh word for Epson printout. Then screen printing is a posh word for a rubber stamp. Yeah but at least some effort has gone into it. Rather than hitting print and setting it to print 25 copies while you have a coffee and read the paper.
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by finsburyparkranger on Aug 26, 2007 12:00:29 GMT 1, Then screen printing is a posh word for a rubber stamp. Yeah but at least some effort has gone into it. Rather than hitting print and setting it to print 25 copies while you have a coffee and read the paper.
"Perfect Giclรฉe prints are a result of the expert application of todayโs most advanced printing technologies. However, producing the highest quality prints requires considerable expertise in order to produce the first high quality reproduction, and to ensure that the quality of the subsequent reproductions matches the first print.
The fine tolerances of highly accurate Giclรฉe print devices need expert maintenance and re-calibration to ensure consistent quality."
Then screen printing is a posh word for a rubber stamp. Yeah but at least some effort has gone into it. Rather than hitting print and setting it to print 25 copies while you have a coffee and read the paper. "Perfect Giclรฉe prints are a result of the expert application of todayโs most advanced printing technologies. However, producing the highest quality prints requires considerable expertise in order to produce the first high quality reproduction, and to ensure that the quality of the subsequent reproductions matches the first print. The fine tolerances of highly accurate Giclรฉe print devices need expert maintenance and re-calibration to ensure consistent quality."
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by jboy on Aug 26, 2007 12:02:50 GMT 1, Yeah but at least some effort has gone into it. Rather than hitting print and setting it to print 25 copies while you have a coffee and read the paper. "Perfect Giclรฉe prints are a result of the expert application of todayโs most advanced printing technologies. However, producing the highest quality prints requires considerable expertise in order to produce the first high quality reproduction, and to ensure that the quality of the subsequent reproductions matches the first print. The fine tolerances of highly accurate Giclรฉe print devices need expert maintenance and re-calibration to ensure consistent quality."
Nice wikipedia description. Still a cop out though if you ask me...
Plus the ink from printers wont last as long as Screen printing ink so it will fade extremely quickly. Its not as good quality.
Yeah but at least some effort has gone into it. Rather than hitting print and setting it to print 25 copies while you have a coffee and read the paper. "Perfect Giclรฉe prints are a result of the expert application of todayโs most advanced printing technologies. However, producing the highest quality prints requires considerable expertise in order to produce the first high quality reproduction, and to ensure that the quality of the subsequent reproductions matches the first print. The fine tolerances of highly accurate Giclรฉe print devices need expert maintenance and re-calibration to ensure consistent quality." Nice wikipedia description. Still a cop out though if you ask me... Plus the ink from printers wont last as long as Screen printing ink so it will fade extremely quickly. Its not as good quality.
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by numusic on Aug 26, 2007 12:06:34 GMT 1, I will NEVER understand why people even begin to compare giclee and screenprinting. They are two completely different processes and are used to reproduce completely different "types" of art. There is NO WAY you'd get as good of a reproduction out of something as detailed as Ian Francis or Guy Denning with a screen. They are more fit for high-contrast, simplified images. Some people can get pretty nasty with layers, but the final product mostly bears significance in the process rather than the final product. Appreciate the giclee for its aunthenticity to the original work and screenprinting for it being an art in itself. One is in no way "inferior" to the other. The ORIGINAL IMAGE is what mostly dictates the process, so if you like that image, you'll take it in whatever form fits it best, right? If I work like Ian Francis or represented his interests, I'd recommend giclee on every piece I've seen from him so far.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree. The Giclee/Screenprint debate is a wate of time. Completly different mediums. Francis work is suitable for Oil and Acrylic as is Dennings, Degas, Carravagio etc. and the best way to make posters from these originals, is to photograph them and reproduce them on textured paper. Give them a 75 year guarantee, and cross your fingers that in 2083 no ones around to ask for their money back
I will NEVER understand why people even begin to compare giclee and screenprinting. They are two completely different processes and are used to reproduce completely different "types" of art. There is NO WAY you'd get as good of a reproduction out of something as detailed as Ian Francis or Guy Denning with a screen. They are more fit for high-contrast, simplified images. Some people can get pretty nasty with layers, but the final product mostly bears significance in the process rather than the final product. Appreciate the giclee for its aunthenticity to the original work and screenprinting for it being an art in itself. One is in no way "inferior" to the other. The ORIGINAL IMAGE is what mostly dictates the process, so if you like that image, you'll take it in whatever form fits it best, right? If I work like Ian Francis or represented his interests, I'd recommend giclee on every piece I've seen from him so far. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree. The Giclee/Screenprint debate is a wate of time. Completly different mediums. Francis work is suitable for Oil and Acrylic as is Dennings, Degas, Carravagio etc. and the best way to make posters from these originals, is to photograph them and reproduce them on textured paper. Give them a 75 year guarantee, and cross your fingers that in 2083 no ones around to ask for their money back
|
|
BMG
Art Gallery
New Member
Posts โข 158
Likes โข 3
August 2007
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by BMG on Aug 26, 2007 12:09:25 GMT 1, Don't get me wrong I love these images and was lucky enough to get a Pikachu but I'm a bit surprised to see giclees being so well received. Looking around this forum generally it is clear that many obviously regard giclees as inferior to screen prints or would only pay up to a certain price for a giclee. Why are people seeing these images differently and in fact are regarding ยฃ350+ as a great price for a giclee? Seems a bit of a turnaround.
interesting topic - in fact, it really depends on the art work and quality that you are looking to replicate that determines the appropriate process, whether its photocopy, screenprint, giclee (high resolution digital print), or offset. For instance, Kinsey is a master screenprinter. He can laboriously breakdown one of his paintings so it can be handled in multiple screens and produce an amazing high quality screen print, but it also helps that he creates fairly graphic style works..... for some of his more complex pieces it is impossible though.
on the other hand, an artist like Ian Francis, Tiffany Bozic or Gregory Euclide would not have the option of a screenprint at all for their paintings without losing a lot of subtle details if you were looking for a near duplicate. For that you used to have a large format picture taken of it (one generation removed), and then have a drum scan taken from the transparancy (two generations removed) and then have that printed onto paper. a few generations removed by that point.
Then Graham Nash (yep, CSNY and Nash Editions - 15 years or so ago) decided to look into and develop a way to cut that second generation out of the process - he developed a super-resolution option (and printer) that went straight from scanning the original art and printing it straight onto the paper with archival inks and it became a first generation replication of the original which is the closest you can get to the original artwork. If done well, it will be nearly indistiguishable. Some french dude named it Giclee, which is fancy word for squirt or spray or sometihng.... but of coooouuuurrrrrse!!
so - we love both methods because they address the ideas of doing editions of the different types of work our artists are creating. One thing i can tell you is that giclees are hella expensive to produce in contrast to screenprints. and they all have to be signed and numbered while you have the artist in capivity, er i mean drinking beer.... :0) best bmg
Don't get me wrong I love these images and was lucky enough to get a Pikachu but I'm a bit surprised to see giclees being so well received. Looking around this forum generally it is clear that many obviously regard giclees as inferior to screen prints or would only pay up to a certain price for a giclee. Why are people seeing these images differently and in fact are regarding ยฃ350+ as a great price for a giclee? Seems a bit of a turnaround. interesting topic - in fact, it really depends on the art work and quality that you are looking to replicate that determines the appropriate process, whether its photocopy, screenprint, giclee (high resolution digital print), or offset. For instance, Kinsey is a master screenprinter. He can laboriously breakdown one of his paintings so it can be handled in multiple screens and produce an amazing high quality screen print, but it also helps that he creates fairly graphic style works..... for some of his more complex pieces it is impossible though. on the other hand, an artist like Ian Francis, Tiffany Bozic or Gregory Euclide would not have the option of a screenprint at all for their paintings without losing a lot of subtle details if you were looking for a near duplicate. For that you used to have a large format picture taken of it (one generation removed), and then have a drum scan taken from the transparancy (two generations removed) and then have that printed onto paper. a few generations removed by that point. Then Graham Nash (yep, CSNY and Nash Editions - 15 years or so ago) decided to look into and develop a way to cut that second generation out of the process - he developed a super-resolution option (and printer) that went straight from scanning the original art and printing it straight onto the paper with archival inks and it became a first generation replication of the original which is the closest you can get to the original artwork. If done well, it will be nearly indistiguishable. Some french dude named it Giclee, which is fancy word for squirt or spray or sometihng.... but of coooouuuurrrrrse!! so - we love both methods because they address the ideas of doing editions of the different types of work our artists are creating. One thing i can tell you is that giclees are hella expensive to produce in contrast to screenprints. and they all have to be signed and numbered while you have the artist in capivity, er i mean drinking beer.... :0) best bmg
|
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by finsburyparkranger on Aug 26, 2007 12:09:31 GMT 1, I will NEVER understand why people even begin to compare giclee and screenprinting. They are two completely different processes and are used to reproduce completely different "types" of art. There is NO WAY you'd get as good of a reproduction out of something as detailed as Ian Francis or Guy Denning with a screen. They are more fit for high-contrast, simplified images. Some people can get pretty nasty with layers, but the final product mostly bears significance in the process rather than the final product. Appreciate the giclee for its aunthenticity to the original work and screenprinting for it being an art in itself. One is in no way "inferior" to the other. The ORIGINAL IMAGE is what mostly dictates the process, so if you like that image, you'll take it in whatever form fits it best, right? If I work like Ian Francis or represented his interests, I'd recommend giclee on every piece I've seen from him so far. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree. The Giclee/Screenprint debate is a wate of time. Completly different mediums. Francis work is suitable for Oil and Acrylic as is Dennings, Degas, Carravagio etc. and the best way to make posters from these originals, is to photograph them and reproduce them on textured paper. Give them a 75 year guarantee, and cross your fingers that in 2083 no ones around to ask for their money back
We wouldn't be a sitting on a large pension fund of screen prints and desperetly trying to talk up our share portfolio now would we.
I will NEVER understand why people even begin to compare giclee and screenprinting. They are two completely different processes and are used to reproduce completely different "types" of art. There is NO WAY you'd get as good of a reproduction out of something as detailed as Ian Francis or Guy Denning with a screen. They are more fit for high-contrast, simplified images. Some people can get pretty nasty with layers, but the final product mostly bears significance in the process rather than the final product. Appreciate the giclee for its aunthenticity to the original work and screenprinting for it being an art in itself. One is in no way "inferior" to the other. The ORIGINAL IMAGE is what mostly dictates the process, so if you like that image, you'll take it in whatever form fits it best, right? If I work like Ian Francis or represented his interests, I'd recommend giclee on every piece I've seen from him so far. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree. The Giclee/Screenprint debate is a wate of time. Completly different mediums. Francis work is suitable for Oil and Acrylic as is Dennings, Degas, Carravagio etc. and the best way to make posters from these originals, is to photograph them and reproduce them on textured paper. Give them a 75 year guarantee, and cross your fingers that in 2083 no ones around to ask for their money back We wouldn't be a sitting on a large pension fund of screen prints and desperetly trying to talk up our share portfolio now would we.
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by numusic on Aug 26, 2007 12:09:33 GMT 1, I don't think there's a turnaround at all. It's a very low edition and Francis has been suitably hyped. I'm still of the opinion that Giclee is an inferior method and that when a new technology comes along to surpass it, and it will. Then it simply won't be used anymore. It's the 12" lazer disc of the print world IMO. I don't think there's a turnaround at all. It's a very low edition and Francis has been suitably hyped. I'm still of the opinion that Giclee is an inferior method and that when a new technology comes along to surpass it, and it will. Then it simply won't be used anymore. It's the 12" lazer disc of the print world IMO. I think there is a turn around. Screen printing is great if you want an image with a very limited colour range. If you want a print that is not limited and uses the full spectrum of colour a giclee represents the best technology we have to do this. The result can be breathtaking. Screen printing represents a very old, albeit still fondly loved technology that just can't produce work of the same complexity a giclee can do. You can make giclee's unique if you wish, it just requires thought and care rather than the ad hoc uncertainties of result that a screen print produces. Giclee's will be improved upon and newer technolgy will be given a new name sometime in the future. just like the screen printing press was improved upon with a new technology called giclee.
?
I don't think there's a turnaround at all. It's a very low edition and Francis has been suitably hyped. I'm still of the opinion that Giclee is an inferior method and that when a new technology comes along to surpass it, and it will. Then it simply won't be used anymore. It's the 12" lazer disc of the print world IMO. I don't think there's a turnaround at all. It's a very low edition and Francis has been suitably hyped. I'm still of the opinion that Giclee is an inferior method and that when a new technology comes along to surpass it, and it will. Then it simply won't be used anymore. It's the 12" lazer disc of the print world IMO. I think there is a turn around. Screen printing is great if you want an image with a very limited colour range. If you want a print that is not limited and uses the full spectrum of colour a giclee represents the best technology we have to do this. The result can be breathtaking. Screen printing represents a very old, albeit still fondly loved technology that just can't produce work of the same complexity a giclee can do. You can make giclee's unique if you wish, it just requires thought and care rather than the ad hoc uncertainties of result that a screen print produces. Giclee's will be improved upon and newer technolgy will be given a new name sometime in the future. just like the screen printing press was improved upon with a new technology called giclee. ?
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by absyrd on Aug 26, 2007 12:10:05 GMT 1, I admit that a 100 layer serigraph done by a company that mass produces editions involves alot of work, but really what they are doing is just taking a picture and printing 100 times instead of once. So I guess you can find a point of comparison. Even then, stuff I own printed like this doesn't live up to the original as well as some of the giclees.
I'm not hating on screenprinting at all. I love simple 4 layer hand-pulled stuff like Banksy prints. I love Faile for their combination use of screening, photoscreening, and hand painting. It works for them.
Like you guys said, to each his own. But would you really not buy a giclee print from an artist you absolutely loved just because it was giclee?
And nice profile location, fins! Bwahahaha...
I admit that a 100 layer serigraph done by a company that mass produces editions involves alot of work, but really what they are doing is just taking a picture and printing 100 times instead of once. So I guess you can find a point of comparison. Even then, stuff I own printed like this doesn't live up to the original as well as some of the giclees.
I'm not hating on screenprinting at all. I love simple 4 layer hand-pulled stuff like Banksy prints. I love Faile for their combination use of screening, photoscreening, and hand painting. It works for them.
Like you guys said, to each his own. But would you really not buy a giclee print from an artist you absolutely loved just because it was giclee?
And nice profile location, fins! Bwahahaha...
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by numusic on Aug 26, 2007 12:12:36 GMT 1, Don't get me wrong, I completely agree. The Giclee/Screenprint debate is a wate of time. Completly different mediums. Francis work is suitable for Oil and Acrylic as is Dennings, Degas, Carravagio etc. and the best way to make posters from these originals, is to photograph them and reproduce them on textured paper. Give them a 75 year guarantee, and cross your fingers that in 2083 no ones around to ask for their money back We wouldn't be a sitting on a large pension fund of screen prints and desperetly trying to talk up our share portfolio now would we.
Yes, that sounds very like me doesn't it.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree. The Giclee/Screenprint debate is a wate of time. Completly different mediums. Francis work is suitable for Oil and Acrylic as is Dennings, Degas, Carravagio etc. and the best way to make posters from these originals, is to photograph them and reproduce them on textured paper. Give them a 75 year guarantee, and cross your fingers that in 2083 no ones around to ask for their money back We wouldn't be a sitting on a large pension fund of screen prints and desperetly trying to talk up our share portfolio now would we. Yes, that sounds very like me doesn't it.
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by numusic on Aug 26, 2007 12:15:53 GMT 1, Yeah but at least some effort has gone into it. Rather than hitting print and setting it to print 25 copies while you have a coffee and read the paper. "Perfect Giclรฉe prints are a result of the expert application of todayโs most advanced printing technologies. However, producing the highest quality prints requires considerable expertise in order to produce the first high quality reproduction, and to ensure that the quality of the subsequent reproductions matches the first print. The fine tolerances of highly accurate Giclรฉe print devices need expert maintenance and re-calibration to ensure consistent quality."
It's that from the Epson sales manual ?
Yeah but at least some effort has gone into it. Rather than hitting print and setting it to print 25 copies while you have a coffee and read the paper. "Perfect Giclรฉe prints are a result of the expert application of todayโs most advanced printing technologies. However, producing the highest quality prints requires considerable expertise in order to produce the first high quality reproduction, and to ensure that the quality of the subsequent reproductions matches the first print. The fine tolerances of highly accurate Giclรฉe print devices need expert maintenance and re-calibration to ensure consistent quality." It's that from the Epson sales manual ?
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by finsburyparkranger on Aug 26, 2007 12:15:57 GMT 1, We wouldn't be a sitting on a large pension fund of screen prints and desperetly trying to talk up our share portfolio now would we. Yes, that sounds very like me doesn't it.
Oh I forgot, you're a 'saint' arn't you. Back to the topic Nu.
We wouldn't be a sitting on a large pension fund of screen prints and desperetly trying to talk up our share portfolio now would we. Yes, that sounds very like me doesn't it. Oh I forgot, you're a 'saint' arn't you. Back to the topic Nu.
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by numusic on Aug 26, 2007 12:17:32 GMT 1, Yes, that sounds very like me doesn't it. Back to the topic Nu.
I don't like nuts
Yes, that sounds very like me doesn't it. Back to the topic Nu. I don't like nuts
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by absyrd on Aug 26, 2007 12:22:39 GMT 1, interesting topic - in fact, it really depends on the art work and quality that you are looking to replicate that determines the appropriate process, whether its photocopy, screenprint, giclee (high resolution digital print), or offset. For instance, Kinsey is a master screenprinter. He can laboriously breakdown one of his paintings so it can be handled in multiple screens and produce an amazing high quality screen print, but it also helps that he creates fairly graphic style works..... for some of his more complex pieces it is impossible though. on the other hand, an artist like Ian Francis, Tiffany Bozic or Gregory Euclide would not have the option of a screenprint at all for their paintings without losing a lot of subtle details if you were looking for a near duplicate. For that you used to have a large format picture taken of it (one generation removed), and then have a drum scan taken from the transparancy (two generations removed) and then have that printed onto paper. a few generations removed by that point. Then Graham Nash (yep, CSNY and Nash Editions - 15 years or so ago) decided to look into and develop a way to cut that second generation out of the process - he developed a super-resolution option (and printer) that went straight from scanning the original art and printing it straight onto the paper with archival inks and it became a first generation replication of the original which is the closest you can get to the original artwork. If done well, it will be nearly indistiguishable. Some french dude named it Giclee, which is fancy word for squirt or spray or sometihng.... but of coooouuuurrrrrse!! so - we love both methods because they address the ideas of doing editions of the different types of work our artists are creating. One thing i can tell you is that giclees are hella expensive to produce in contrast to screenprints. and they all have to be signed and numbered while you have the artist in capivity, er i mean drinking beer.... :0) best bmg
BlkMrkt giclees are actually what gave me faith in the process. I copped a Tiffany Bozic for my mother a while ago and a Ben Tour more recently for myself. Needless to say, those were a bit less expensive, but they assured me that this $700 was worth it.
And on the Dave Kinsey tip... the set of 3 record sleeves are probably the most detailed and well-registered screens I own.
Cheers!
interesting topic - in fact, it really depends on the art work and quality that you are looking to replicate that determines the appropriate process, whether its photocopy, screenprint, giclee (high resolution digital print), or offset. For instance, Kinsey is a master screenprinter. He can laboriously breakdown one of his paintings so it can be handled in multiple screens and produce an amazing high quality screen print, but it also helps that he creates fairly graphic style works..... for some of his more complex pieces it is impossible though. on the other hand, an artist like Ian Francis, Tiffany Bozic or Gregory Euclide would not have the option of a screenprint at all for their paintings without losing a lot of subtle details if you were looking for a near duplicate. For that you used to have a large format picture taken of it (one generation removed), and then have a drum scan taken from the transparancy (two generations removed) and then have that printed onto paper. a few generations removed by that point. Then Graham Nash (yep, CSNY and Nash Editions - 15 years or so ago) decided to look into and develop a way to cut that second generation out of the process - he developed a super-resolution option (and printer) that went straight from scanning the original art and printing it straight onto the paper with archival inks and it became a first generation replication of the original which is the closest you can get to the original artwork. If done well, it will be nearly indistiguishable. Some french dude named it Giclee, which is fancy word for squirt or spray or sometihng.... but of coooouuuurrrrrse!! so - we love both methods because they address the ideas of doing editions of the different types of work our artists are creating. One thing i can tell you is that giclees are hella expensive to produce in contrast to screenprints. and they all have to be signed and numbered while you have the artist in capivity, er i mean drinking beer.... :0) best bmg BlkMrkt giclees are actually what gave me faith in the process. I copped a Tiffany Bozic for my mother a while ago and a Ben Tour more recently for myself. Needless to say, those were a bit less expensive, but they assured me that this $700 was worth it. And on the Dave Kinsey tip... the set of 3 record sleeves are probably the most detailed and well-registered screens I own. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by numusic on Aug 26, 2007 12:23:03 GMT 1, Yes, that sounds very like me doesn't it. Oh I forgot, you're a 'saint' arn't you. Back to the topic Nu.
Ahh, you modified an insult into your post. Clever lad. Sorry, what was the topic again cos you seem to have changed it twice already ?
Yes, that sounds very like me doesn't it. Oh I forgot, you're a 'saint' arn't you. Back to the topic Nu. Ahh, you modified an insult into your post. Clever lad. Sorry, what was the topic again cos you seem to have changed it twice already ?
|
|
BMG
Art Gallery
New Member
Posts โข 158
Likes โข 3
August 2007
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by BMG on Aug 26, 2007 12:24:30 GMT 1, Then screen printing is a posh word for a rubber stamp. Yeah but at least some effort has gone into it. Rather than hitting print and setting it to print 25 copies while you have a coffee and read the paper. hi - it doesn't seem like you yet understand the reasons behind each method. it's not like picking sides or flavors of candy - there are specific and valid reasons for both methods of reproduction.
Then screen printing is a posh word for a rubber stamp. Yeah but at least some effort has gone into it. Rather than hitting print and setting it to print 25 copies while you have a coffee and read the paper. hi - it doesn't seem like you yet understand the reasons behind each method. it's not like picking sides or flavors of candy - there are specific and valid reasons for both methods of reproduction.
|
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by numusic on Aug 26, 2007 12:42:48 GMT 1, interesting topic - in fact, it really depends on the art work and quality that you are looking to replicate that determines the appropriate process, whether its photocopy, screenprint, giclee (high resolution digital print), or offset. For instance, Kinsey is a master screenprinter. He can laboriously breakdown one of his paintings so it can be handled in multiple screens and produce an amazing high quality screen print, but it also helps that he creates fairly graphic style works..... for some of his more complex pieces it is impossible though. on the other hand, an artist like Ian Francis, Tiffany Bozic or Gregory Euclide would not have the option of a screenprint at all for their paintings without losing a lot of subtle details if you were looking for a near duplicate. For that you used to have a large format picture taken of it (one generation removed), and then have a drum scan taken from the transparancy (two generations removed) and then have that printed onto paper. a few generations removed by that point. Then Graham Nash (yep, CSNY and Nash Editions - 15 years or so ago) decided to look into and develop a way to cut that second generation out of the process - he developed a super-resolution option (and printer) that went straight from scanning the original art and printing it straight onto the paper with archival inks and it became a first generation replication of the original which is the closest you can get to the original artwork. If done well, it will be nearly indistiguishable. Some french dude named it Giclee, which is fancy word for squirt or spray or sometihng.... but of coooouuuurrrrrse!! so - we love both methods because they address the ideas of doing editions of the different types of work our artists are creating. One thing i can tell you is that giclees are hella expensive to produce in contrast to screenprints. and they all have to be signed and numbered while you have the artist in capivity, er i mean drinking beer.... :0) best bmg BlkMrkt giclees are actually what gave me faith in the process. I copped a Tiffany Bozic for my mother a while ago and a Ben Tour more recently for myself. Needless to say, those were a bit less expensive, but they assured me that this $700 was worth it. And on the Dave Kinsey tip... the set of 3 record sleeves are probably the most detailed and well-registered screens I own. Cheers!
I wouldn't argue against the technology used to reproduce the original, I'd argue against the concept that it needs to be reproduced for anything other than documentation purposes at all. There are very few if any artists apart from Gilbert and George, Hockney, Kennard etc, that I know of who are engaging with the Ink Jet as a medium relevant to either the form or content of the work produced. I'm presuming that artists use the best method to express what they have to say, sometimes paint, photography, screenprint whatever, but generally, how to reproduce the work isn't an issue.
We've had methods of reproducing work that isn't suitable for screens for years. It's called a potograph. People used to buy photographic prints of old masters to dot around the house. A Giclee is an extension of this, and in my opinion, shouldn't be discussed in the same way that a handpulled screenprint is created. A vast amount of screenprints are created specifically for the medium. Artists pour years of time into getting one print right, Chuck Close for example.
When artists start using this technology and pushing it into new areas for the specific purpose of creating a work for that medium, then I'll start thinking it's something more than an expensive poster/edition market, driven by the industry, and not really required by the artist. But I guess the prices of the machines will have to come down a bit before that happens
interesting topic - in fact, it really depends on the art work and quality that you are looking to replicate that determines the appropriate process, whether its photocopy, screenprint, giclee (high resolution digital print), or offset. For instance, Kinsey is a master screenprinter. He can laboriously breakdown one of his paintings so it can be handled in multiple screens and produce an amazing high quality screen print, but it also helps that he creates fairly graphic style works..... for some of his more complex pieces it is impossible though. on the other hand, an artist like Ian Francis, Tiffany Bozic or Gregory Euclide would not have the option of a screenprint at all for their paintings without losing a lot of subtle details if you were looking for a near duplicate. For that you used to have a large format picture taken of it (one generation removed), and then have a drum scan taken from the transparancy (two generations removed) and then have that printed onto paper. a few generations removed by that point. Then Graham Nash (yep, CSNY and Nash Editions - 15 years or so ago) decided to look into and develop a way to cut that second generation out of the process - he developed a super-resolution option (and printer) that went straight from scanning the original art and printing it straight onto the paper with archival inks and it became a first generation replication of the original which is the closest you can get to the original artwork. If done well, it will be nearly indistiguishable. Some french dude named it Giclee, which is fancy word for squirt or spray or sometihng.... but of coooouuuurrrrrse!! so - we love both methods because they address the ideas of doing editions of the different types of work our artists are creating. One thing i can tell you is that giclees are hella expensive to produce in contrast to screenprints. and they all have to be signed and numbered while you have the artist in capivity, er i mean drinking beer.... :0) best bmg BlkMrkt giclees are actually what gave me faith in the process. I copped a Tiffany Bozic for my mother a while ago and a Ben Tour more recently for myself. Needless to say, those were a bit less expensive, but they assured me that this $700 was worth it. And on the Dave Kinsey tip... the set of 3 record sleeves are probably the most detailed and well-registered screens I own. Cheers! I wouldn't argue against the technology used to reproduce the original, I'd argue against the concept that it needs to be reproduced for anything other than documentation purposes at all. There are very few if any artists apart from Gilbert and George, Hockney, Kennard etc, that I know of who are engaging with the Ink Jet as a medium relevant to either the form or content of the work produced. I'm presuming that artists use the best method to express what they have to say, sometimes paint, photography, screenprint whatever, but generally, how to reproduce the work isn't an issue. We've had methods of reproducing work that isn't suitable for screens for years. It's called a potograph. People used to buy photographic prints of old masters to dot around the house. A Giclee is an extension of this, and in my opinion, shouldn't be discussed in the same way that a handpulled screenprint is created. A vast amount of screenprints are created specifically for the medium. Artists pour years of time into getting one print right, Chuck Close for example. When artists start using this technology and pushing it into new areas for the specific purpose of creating a work for that medium, then I'll start thinking it's something more than an expensive poster/edition market, driven by the industry, and not really required by the artist. But I guess the prices of the machines will have to come down a bit before that happens
|
|
BMG
Art Gallery
New Member
Posts โข 158
Likes โข 3
August 2007
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by BMG on Aug 26, 2007 12:42:50 GMT 1, I understand the methods for giclee. 1. load the paper 2. press print ahha, a funny guy! that's what these silly yellow things must be for: ;D
I understand the methods for giclee. 1. load the paper 2. press print ahha, a funny guy! that's what these silly yellow things must be for: ;D
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by jboy on Aug 26, 2007 12:44:51 GMT 1, Yeah but at least some effort has gone into it. Rather than hitting print and setting it to print 25 copies while you have a coffee and read the paper. hi - it doesn't seem like you yet understand the reasons behind each method. it's not like picking sides or flavors of candy - there are specific and valid reasons for both methods of reproduction.
I understand the methods for giclee.
1. load the paper 2. press print
I work with printing processes everyday including Litho, Flexo, Grav and screen.
Giclee would in professional terms be described as a 'DIGITAL PRINT'. There is no expertise that goes into it apart from checking the colours are right on the screen to what it prints out. Once that is ok your ok to go.
Digital inks have a shorter shelf life than others, partly due to the fact the colours are made out of vegetable oil based inks and not spirit based inks and if kept in a room with any source of light - will fade over a period of 1 - 2 years quite dramatically.
J
Yeah but at least some effort has gone into it. Rather than hitting print and setting it to print 25 copies while you have a coffee and read the paper. hi - it doesn't seem like you yet understand the reasons behind each method. it's not like picking sides or flavors of candy - there are specific and valid reasons for both methods of reproduction. I understand the methods for giclee. 1. load the paper 2. press print I work with printing processes everyday including Litho, Flexo, Grav and screen. Giclee would in professional terms be described as a 'DIGITAL PRINT'. There is no expertise that goes into it apart from checking the colours are right on the screen to what it prints out. Once that is ok your ok to go. Digital inks have a shorter shelf life than others, partly due to the fact the colours are made out of vegetable oil based inks and not spirit based inks and if kept in a room with any source of light - will fade over a period of 1 - 2 years quite dramatically. J
|
|
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by numusic on Aug 26, 2007 12:45:12 GMT 1,
ok, I'm back on it see below
ok, I'm back on it see below
|
|
BMG
Art Gallery
New Member
Posts โข 158
Likes โข 3
August 2007
|
IAN FRANCIS Prints! GET THEM NOwwwww, by BMG on Aug 26, 2007 12:51:04 GMT 1, BlkMrkt giclees are actually what gave me faith in the process. I copped a Tiffany Bozic for my mother a while ago and a Ben Tour more recently for myself. Needless to say, those were a bit less expensive, but they assured me that this $700 was worth it. And on the Dave Kinsey tip... the set of 3 record sleeves are probably the most detailed and well-registered screens I own. Cheers! I wouldn't argue against the technology used to reproduce the original, I'd argue against the concept that it needs to be reproduced for anything other than documentation purposes at all. There are very few if any artists apart from Gilbert and George, Hockney, Kennard etc, that I know of who are engaging with the Ink Jet as a medium relevant to either the form or content of the work produced. I'm presuming that artists use the best method to express what they have to say, sometimes paint, photography, screenprint whatever, but generally, how to reproduce the work isn't an issue. We've had methods of reproducing work that isn't suitable for screens for years. It's called a potograph. People used to buy photographic prints of old masters to dot around the house. A Giclee is an extension of this, and in my opinion, shouldn't be discussed in the same way that a handpulled screenprint is created. A vast amount of screenprints are created specifically for the medium. Artists pour years of time into getting one print right, Chuck Close for example. When artists start using this technology and pushing it into new areas for the specific purpose of creating a work for that medium, then I'll start thinking it's something more than an expensive poster/edition market, driven by the industry, and not really required by the artist. But I guess the prices of the machines will have to come down a bit before that happens good points and subject but not what is currently being discussed here regarding Ian Francis giclee prints and their value as replications of his original works vs screenprints. many screenprints are created from other works not originally intended for the medium of a hand pulled print as well - but hey this conversation makes me feel like i'm back in art school! blech
BlkMrkt giclees are actually what gave me faith in the process. I copped a Tiffany Bozic for my mother a while ago and a Ben Tour more recently for myself. Needless to say, those were a bit less expensive, but they assured me that this $700 was worth it. And on the Dave Kinsey tip... the set of 3 record sleeves are probably the most detailed and well-registered screens I own. Cheers! I wouldn't argue against the technology used to reproduce the original, I'd argue against the concept that it needs to be reproduced for anything other than documentation purposes at all. There are very few if any artists apart from Gilbert and George, Hockney, Kennard etc, that I know of who are engaging with the Ink Jet as a medium relevant to either the form or content of the work produced. I'm presuming that artists use the best method to express what they have to say, sometimes paint, photography, screenprint whatever, but generally, how to reproduce the work isn't an issue. We've had methods of reproducing work that isn't suitable for screens for years. It's called a potograph. People used to buy photographic prints of old masters to dot around the house. A Giclee is an extension of this, and in my opinion, shouldn't be discussed in the same way that a handpulled screenprint is created. A vast amount of screenprints are created specifically for the medium. Artists pour years of time into getting one print right, Chuck Close for example. When artists start using this technology and pushing it into new areas for the specific purpose of creating a work for that medium, then I'll start thinking it's something more than an expensive poster/edition market, driven by the industry, and not really required by the artist. But I guess the prices of the machines will have to come down a bit before that happens good points and subject but not what is currently being discussed here regarding Ian Francis giclee prints and their value as replications of his original works vs screenprints. many screenprints are created from other works not originally intended for the medium of a hand pulled print as well - but hey this conversation makes me feel like i'm back in art school! blech
|
|