The last few months thoughts have been zooming through my head of printmaking and creating something a bit more generally accessible. And I really do miss printmaking...
In the new studio I'm hoping, in time, to have space for a small table for printmaking. A separate table would mean having somewhere to print (which I prefer to do by hand with a baren) and lay out finished pieces to dry, without putting aside the painting palette area.
But what to print? So many ideas. I could return to linear ideas and slightly more figurative images - like I did on my printmaking day with Jo Oakley in March. That would be linocuts. Or I could experiment with taking my usual abstracted seascapes into monoprints or monotypes.
What keeps coming into my head as a sort of economic "solution" is of course reproduction prints. So many artists do them. But whenever I think about I feel awful in the pit of my stomach. I really don't want mass-produced multiple copies of my paintings out in the world. It's one of the very few things I'm precious about. (which is not at all to say reproduction prints are a bad thing, they're just not for me personally)
Saying that, I'd love to know your point of view. Am I being silly? Is there even demand for reproductions of my paintings? (a few people isn't enough to justify it) And of course if you do think I should go that direction - where on earth to print? (I have researched it and can't find anywhere that makes the prints affordable enough for my US$ based selling sites - I have no offline market for this type of product.) Any and all feedback welcome.
Until then I shall make some phone calls to recover my long lost wind-down press, and perhaps take my folding table from the shed to the studio... I might even do some madness-inducing linos like my Cutty Sark one from the late 90s. In fact, I could even do more prints of that, of a sort. Some areas of the lino have been damaged over the years (it's about 1m high) but I could take prints of areas. Hmmm...
If you'd like to see images of the Cutty Sark itself, before the fire, click over to the Watermarks blog! I've posted a set of photos I took some years ago while it was used for a film set. With sails.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f012ead7-5f3a-429c-a0be-cd13b79d9ba5)
Posts
11 comments:
Hello Sweetie,it's Jo Oaklkey here!!!! You are going to have trouble printing your cutty sark lino as we did not unpack it on the studio move....I have itxxxx
Tina I am usually a lurker but this post really got me thinking! I embarrassingly wrote a huge comment here but when it got to about paragraph 4 I thought it was far too long for a blog comment and was perhaps more suited to an actual blog post!!! (even more embarassing is the fact that I only just realised that I have given it the same blog title as yours..... Uhm) - I don't want to blatantly promote my blog but I did want to write some thoughts so here is the link (please edit the link out if you are not happy about having it here) http://gilflingsdesigns.typepad.com/gilflings_designs/2009/05/to-print-or-not-to-print.html - I have linked back to your original post in my blog if that is ok.
Economically speaking I earn as much from my prints for my popular paintings as I did from the original!
Hello, just a thought from a printmaker. I treat my drawings and watercolours as my preliminary sketching (although these pieces are deffinitely finished works in their own right) and my prints as the 'final' piece. I have an upcoming exhibition and as part of that am framing and selling the 'sketches' and the final printed art both. The prints may or may not vary from the original. Why don't you treat your printmaking as part of your experimental drawing process towards your completed paintings? And sell them as works of art in their own right - separate from but linked to pieces you do? Hope this makes sense - will be blogging about it this week.
Tina - I have little to say about prints vs not prints (others have said it all, and better than me). But I do believe in the general guiding principle of the gut - if it makes your gut wrench, avoid it.
I'm with Cat in a Box about the reproductions. But, I think doing handmade prints as another (more affordable)body of work is a great idea!
I'm with you on repro, although since many of my prints are actually made digitally, that's probably not entirely consistent. I know that photos and digital prints are still originals, but I have a hard time getting that across.
Like JayDee I would have thought you could use monoprinting especially, as a way to try things out for your paintings. That is a very painterly process. My own favourite is collagraph, which combines my interest in collage with the painterly aspects of monoprinting.
If you are worried about mass produced copies out in the world, why not just to do a limited edition? From a customer's point of view - perhaps there are people who love your work and cannot afford an original but would buy a print?
Thanks for the comments everyone! I sincerely appreciate any point of view. :)
For those who asked, here's a preview of the monoprints: http://tinyurl.com/q6edwd
I'm going to pursue the monoprints idea further, perhaps some small editions of linocuts. Since reproductions still feel wrong for me and I can't find an affordable way to print them anyway, I'm going to skip them for now.
For the record, I see no practical reason for limited reproductions - the product has no inherent value in itself (unlike an original, in my opinion, there is no 'hand of the artist' in a reproduction) and so limiting it would just be limiting potential income. So I think repros may as well be open editions anyway. Limiting them is a historical practice that came from handpulled printmaking where the print edition was limited because of the physical nature of the plate - it wore down. With digital reproductions that's not an issue so it's an artificial limitation. All IMHO.
gilfling I loved your post too! Please DO feel free to leave your own blog links if you have blogged a response to ideas. Blogging is for sharing. :)
I'm so glad to find someone who agree with me about limited edition repros...
I blogged on it here:
http://ibanda.blogs.com/panchromatica/2007/09/whats-it-worth.html
A very interesting blog Ian. Not entirely sure I agree, as I can see some merit in the limitation of digital art/photography originals even if just to establish a value through scarcity.
Reproductions are different, in my opinion, for all but the most famous artists because there is no artistic value in a reproduction print whether scarce or not - it's a simple manufactured item, not creative product, and is marked up like other retail markups. Hence my opinion that there's no point limiting the earning potential from it.
And I can't take credit for my point of view being unique. I was convinced by the wise words of Barney Davey over on the Wetcanvas.com business forum. His blog is here: http://barneydavey.blogs.com/ and here's one thread where he first discussed the issue: http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=439358
Post a Comment