I've seen some really awesome Giclee prints made on Arches watercolour paper and Stonehenge cotton paper - so good you can hardly tell them from the original. The results depend a lot on the pressman's eye for colour (not everyone can see the nuances in colour), his patience, and the artist's input, as well as proper handling.
Giclees are said to be "archival" - meaning they will last 100 years in a gallery environment which involves the print being conservation framed, kept at regulated humidity, with little to no UV light exposure. The inks are pigmented and lightfast, quite unlike the inks used in common 4-colour "inkjet" printing. Even some limited edition lithographs don't meet these standards.
In offset lithography, all the prints are physically the same regardless of the number. With Giclee prints, the artist can print as many or as few as they like at one time, so #1 may be quite different from #10. But because of the smaller capital investment, Giclees are more inexpensive for artists to print.
Unfortunatlely, this has produced a glut on the market. Historically, only artists or agents with sure-sellers would invest in a large edition of lithos, but now virtually anyone (including some very mediocre artists) can have a giclee produced.
Regardless of the process, if a print is really what you want, the lower numbers have a higher "perceived value", and the lower the edition is overall, the more "valuable" each print will be. The jury is still out on the true "value" of a giclee among the general public.
Advice to the first answerer - calling a Giclee an "inkjet print" simply devalues the far superior Giclee process. I would never attempt to sell anything with this label, regardless of its actual value. Let's call things what they are - inkjets are not giclees are not lithos - and pass this bit of education along to the buyers.
The people who buy Giclees in my gallery are those who refuse to invest in the originals. Personally, I think these prints have also killed the market for originals in many communities. I personally won't add to this dilemna by printing giclees... at least until there's more widespread education on the subject.
2006-09-04 12:36:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by joyfulpaints 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I've bought giclee art (inkjet prints), and I've made several myself. I prefer the term 'inket print' since it doesn't sound so pretensious.
I buy art which pleases me, not because of the price. I've bought several prints done by children and/or relatively obscure artists because I think the work is good or fun or I just really like the artist.
2006-09-04 17:48:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by paleblueshoe 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't buy it, largely because I think it too fragile. I worked in a print shop that tried to make editions on an Iris printer. It was really not easy to get a good result, particularly large
prints on the nicer papers. We would often generate dozens of test prints before we got one that the print manager found adequate. In the end it wasn't very profitable because of the time and paper waste... so when I see a nice Iris print, I certainly do admire the amount of effort that went into it.
I did keep about a half dozen prints that failed the boss's scrutinizing (too dark, too light, scratches on the surface... whatever). But like I said, I wouldn't spend money on them precisely because they are quite fragile.
2006-09-04 18:00:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't buy it persay, but it is purchased from me, as I do prints of my favourite pieces, no more than 50 in a series.
The other reader was talking about how fragile they were, wha? I get my work printed onto canvas, then varnished...it's as tough as the original.
As an artist, injet prints on canvas are a way to generate more income from a single painting without going through the cost of litho.
And yeah, they buy, as the original is priced to not sell before the prints, unless they really really want it.
2006-09-04 20:30:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by colourshift 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
the only time i'd buy a giclee is if it were printed by the artist otherwise it's just a copy and it doesn't matter what number it is..sorry..
2006-09-04 19:09:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by goldengirl 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Don't spend much on a repro. If you really want to invest in art, save up and buy an original for $10,000 or more, from a reputable agent, dealer or gallery. Anthing less, buy only because you like it, and it fits well over the sofa.
2006-09-05 06:00:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by Victor 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a P-H-O-T-O-C-O-P-Y.
Do the economics!
2006-09-05 14:23:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by anotherthirteen 2
·
0⤊
0⤋