Reproduction is not a dirty word

I though tagging as a "print" was enough of a description that it is obviously a reproduction. I didn't realize I needed to also tag it as a reproduction, however in my company description I clearly describe how the giclee canvas prints are made. I think some people, like myself, just didn't know hwo to tag it.

Posted at 2:02pm Oct 7, 2009 EDT

sorry, dreamtree. i misremembered what you said.

i am thinking that digital art should not have the original/reproduction split that some other areas so badly need. this is why i am thinking certain sub-cats like painting, drawing, illustration, collage, should have the mandatory split when you chose them, while others should not even have the term mentioned.

yes, no, maybe?????

welcome, babychick to this thread.

Posted at 2:25pm Oct 7, 2009 EDT

No worries! :)

YES, that's exactly right - digital doesn't need the original or repro tags or subcats at all. Just to bring magicjelly's suggested digital category back up for everyone:

Art > Digital >>

3-D
algorithmic
animation
collage
drawing
fractal
illustration
mixed media
montage
painting
photomanipulation
pixel
vector


And yes, I agree that other sub-cats DO need the distinction of original vs. reproduction.

------------------------------------------------------
Ideally, if I'm looking for a print/repro of an oil painting, I'd see:

art > painting >> oil >>> reproduction print

vs. if I was seeking an original one-of-a-kind oil:

art > painting >> oil >>> original
--------------------------------------------------

OR you could do the split earlier:

art > original > oil
art > reproduction print > oil
----------------------------------------------------

Personally, as a buyer, I prefer the first scheme for a few reasons. I'd rather drill down to specific type of art (painting, in this case) and see what media were listed as subcats since I may not know what kind of painting I want and then once I've chosen a medium, I could make the choice between original or reproduction.

Any of that make sense? Anyway, it's just my opinion, of course! I'm glad to see this discussion still going. :)

Posted at 2:37pm Oct 7, 2009 EDT

Hi babychick!!! Welcome, welcome..At this particular time on Etsy reproduction print is the best way to go. You can pick both reproduction and print up on searches.

Your company giclee description excellent.

Thanks dreamtree! This woman I am meeting has such a big project for the right person. She has gone through 2 artists so far because their drawings/painting were'nt fun enough. So I hope this mine "Fun enough" for her. ha..(I would love to talk to the other artists about her!) ha

I agree original should be separated from originals. I like you top scheme also..great idea..

OK gotta clean before the health dept. knocks on my door.

Posted at 2:59pm Oct 7, 2009 EDT

mookiejones said:
folks, i know and stated giclees are a process but a small number of knowing and shrewd dealers have taken to calling them giclee's or giclee prints to elevate them above the term ink-jet print (even though they really aren't ). pan, i was just trying to make a point that a giclee ( really the resulting print that results from giclee printing) is a reproduction. i did not want to argue semantics then and there.

-- it isn't semantics it is lack of clarity- if you mean the print from a giclee call it that - you don't call a photographic print an enlarger do you?

i read the first giclee printers were drums.

doesn't matter anyhow.

-- it does, because if you want people to listen to you you must demonstrate at least some understanding of what you are talking about and confusing a printer with a scanner is pretty basic.

ok, imagine sells giclee prints. i offer 1 lab processed repro created by giclee process. others call them giclees or giclee prints. most don't. whatever.

-- if you really want to dismiss all that has been said about the need for clarity with 'whatever', then all this has been a monumental waste of time.

I thought - obviously wrongly - that we had reached a general consensus that digital prints were a category of printmaking separate and distinct from digital reproduction print. We are rehashing the same old things over and over and everytime we seem to reach a consensus someone changes their mind. I'm sorry, but I've reached my limit - I really am bowing out this time. I shall make my points in future directly to Etsy.

Posted at 3:11pm Oct 7, 2009 EDT

I agree that digital art prints are completely different than a printmaking technique like litho or block printing, etc.

To add onto my earlier format suggestion (and this is probably a pipe dream, but I thought I'd toss it out there:
------------------------------------------------

art > painting >> oil >>> reproduction print
art > painting >> oil >>> original

THEN, under repro and under original, it would be great to see some styles listed to further break it down.

Getting that much of the category/tag issue corrected would be the first step, of course, and I'll be thrilled if nothing other than that gets done. But, it's nice to see things like: abstract, landscape, still life, animals, fantasy, etc.

Of course, a few people would probably argue that someone's work may not belong in abstract or whatever, but the real problem would be resolved as everything would be in the correct main categories to start with and style is just a way to help narrow down a search. So you could have:

art > painting >> oil >>> reproduction print
-abstract
-landscapes
-fantasy
-still life
-etc, etc, etc.

Anyway, just another 2c (or so) & wishful thinking. :) If the main cats are fixed so that originals and reproductions don't mingle during SEARCH, then the further breakdown by style would be moot, of course.

Posted at 3:25pm Oct 7, 2009 EDT

pan, i don't want to go head to head with you. i do not know what upset yo so much and if i contributed i am sorry but ( and there is always a but---
here is an exerpt from a site that came up in a search for giclee drum printers:

"prints.

The ColorSpan-- giclée PrintMaker operates on the same kind of drum system as the Iris Gprint (giclée
printer version of the Iris 3047) and Ixia. The drum model of ColorSpan has not been updated and is no longer manufactured. However used units are available. ColorSpan itself has a policy of providing tech support and spare parts for all their former models. In this regard ColorSpan has one of the best policies in the market. HP, for example, cuts off owners of some of its older printers, so parts for the HP 650 are reportedly no longer available from HP. Spare parts and tech support are also available even for these older ColorSpan models."

so i think that maybe there is a drum type scanner but there sure are/were drum printers.

i said it does not matter because refining categories has not much to do with drum or flat printing.
as i said, i did bnot want to get into a semantics argument wtih the poster i was conversing with, lest i get demeaned again.

i called them giclee prints on this thread numerous times, anyway although i agree it is a process, not a product. i doubt my terminology to keep things smooth has not interered with my credibility or lack of it, depending on who you ask.

seriously, we all would hate to lose you as a poster in this important thread. please reconsider.

pan said: if you really want to dismiss all that has been said about the need for clarity with 'whatever', then all this has been a monumental waste of time.

huh? i hardly think a 'whatever' which was a reference to different artists calling them different things negates a thread about each and every division of fine art. to me, again, it was not a point to belabor.

pan said: I thought - obviously wrongly - that we had reached a general consensus that digital prints were a category of printmaking separate and distinct from digital reproduction print. We are rehashing the same old things over and over and everytime we seem to reach a consensus someone changes their mind. I'm sorry, but I've reached my limit - I really am bowing out this time. I shall make my points in future directly to Etsy.

i can't find where someone mentioned digital repro prints lately at all. where is the rehash? i, too thought that digital was faairly wrapped up. i had commented that i thought digital art did not need the orignal/repro split. were you somehow referring to that?

Posted at 3:27pm Oct 7, 2009 EDT

mookiejones says:

huh? i hardly think a 'whatever' which was a reference to different artists calling them different things negates a thread about each and every division of fine art. to me, again, it was not a point to belabor.

---------

What?

If I'm reading this correctly, I do think "whatever"ing at "different artists calling (them) different things" in a thread you started about trying to get people to use correct terminology (as you see it) does kind of negate some of the validity of the argument, actually.

Posted at 4:17pm Oct 7, 2009 EDT

Thanks for the nice words about my avi Trudy...but I wouldn't count out buying "regular" prints on good quality papers, and only buy giclees myself. I'd miss out on a lot of great art that way.

Posted at 5:28pm Oct 7, 2009 EDT

sometimes, 'whatever' is not a word a teenager uses to defy their parents. sometimes it means whichever or i meant whichever. anyway, i stand my by statement that the right word or a poor choice of a word does not negate an entire thread and that the issue of whether it is called giclee for the process or a giclee print for the product has no real impact on the category discussion.

please, can we continue the civilized discussion/debate?
it is this productiveness that will get us all what we want- a refinement of the art categories.

and by the way, sometimes you have to take someone at their word. when i said i did not want to argue at that point, i meant it. for my own reasons. good reasons. i don't have to explain here.

Posted at 5:39pm Oct 7, 2009 EDT