"Giclees"- Those French. They have a way with a phrase don't they? My cynic-radar is working overtime on this one. Who started this craze? Why is it so important for artists to - all of a sudden - have to make "giclees" of their work. It's become a cottage industry all its own. You're almost stygmatized if you don't consider converting your work into "giclees." That word falls trippingly off the tongue doesn't it?. That word is everywhere. What happened to prints? At some time in history, prints became a dirty word. No one sells prints anymore? I guess we had to come up with a better way to cleanse our minds and we rehashed prints into "giclees." I know! I can hear you all now. "Giclees" are not prints. Each is an individual hand touched piece. No two are alike. The artist puts his/her individual "mark" on each. Each is unique. Well prints were unique after you put your signature on it. This just seems like another "scheme" to camouflage prints into something "new and improved." An artist friend was approached to supply "giclees" to a gallery. He has to pay for the printing, frame it (in this case) and ship it to the gallery. The gallery takes half of the sale price. 50/50. Anyone see anything wrong with my math? Since the artist was approached by the gallery, why doesn't the gallery pay for the print, frame it and ship it to the client. 60/40 in the artist's favor. Afterall, it is his work they are making a profit from. Again and again. (by the way the gallery's only overhead is a website - no actual gallery exists.) Am I blaspheming here? Am I mentioning the unmentionable? Unless you have a ready market to sell these "giclees", you better watch out they don't put you in the poorhouse. They aren't cheap to produce. If you don't do your homework, your "giclees" will end up in a pile next to all your unsold prints. I'm all for new marketing ideas for artists to get their work out to people, but between us artists, they're prints you touch up by dashing some paint here and there. The market is flooded with "cheap" prints. For those who want to keep their work for themselves, stay home and let other artists sell their work. For me the original is still the one and only. Good luck to everyone selling "giclees" or prints. Really

It's not just the cheap art sold at discount prices that is the real issue here. We all know when we see a discount priced painting that it isn’t fine art. But when someone claims to have painted them themselves, that can be called nothing less than fraud and deception. The real tragedy is that the fame and profit is gained at the expense of sweatshop laborers who work 18 hours a day 7 days a week and make less than $30 per month. These Chinese painters are talented and work hard but receive no credit for their work. They live in dormitories and are slave labor in every sense of the word. Fair Trade is not even a consideration in these imported fakes. The con-artists who import, sign and sell these paintings as their own are taking the art and becoming known as some of the most talented artists in America. Typically an imported Chinese painting will cost about $50, of which the factory worker receives about half, while the so called American artist is getting $5000. The way I look at it is that if it’s sold as a Chinese paint over print, then great. And if someone is crazy enough to pay $5000 for it, then that’s up to them. But to perpetrate fraud and deception is not only morally wrong it could be illegal. The scam artist I bought a painting from is the Featured Artist at the most well known International Spiritual Center in Culver City California. I can only hope that the Reverend and his staff are unaware of the fraudulent practice which is lining the walls of the sanctuary.

This is an interesting and very timely discussion. I am in the process of becoming and emerging artist and would like that to include some income. I'm finding that whether one approaches sales of originals or sales of reproductions, the first obstacle is a high front-end cost. One needs a high number of originals. One struggles to find a show or gallery that accepts any but established artists. If your works are going into shows or galleries, they need to be framed. The artist is likely responsible for transportation. Gallery percentages are high. There is no guarantee for any sales, and a sale of a percentage of the work will likely fall far short of your overhead. To market reproductions means going for volume, and good quailty reproductions are expensive. To sell, they also need to be framed, and the artist needs a marketer or one's own sales space. Starving artists are not a myth, they are a direct result of the marketing system.

It appears that the number responding to your piece about Prints vs Originals is strongly defending the position of prints over originals. Could it be that the silent majority has not weighed in on this debate?

Rick says it all. I don't do prints, never have, never will, giclées or other. My energy goes into making the painting, not reproducing, framing, transporting, negotiating and giving my work away to greedy dealers. I have made a decent living this way. To me, all reproductions, no matter how they're made, cheapen an original. Anyway, Giclée translates into "spurting" -- do you really want your work to be spurted? Sometimes a sense of humour helps.

I face much the same situation as David Hallowell in his letter at the top. There are no easy answers. Just as when I started painting, I had to make my choices - and later my work becomes defined by them, so it works when I work in a different medium. I have, for personal reasons started to take my daily sketches to the computer, scan them in and redraw them using software tools. The giclee prints that I print, UV coat and sign in limited editions are digital originals. It is up to me to keep track of the numbering, where each went and to protect the digital fire. I maintain control by framing the work and price it so that the frame is about half of the value. Have a look at byHugo.com and let me know what you think. And yet, as to giclees not gaining in value I have different experience. I am in the process of selling a giclee (a print of an original) that I bought for $800 (framed) ten years ago for over $8000. There is a lesson in why that is possible.

I think Frank Armistead said it all. I love to paint. I am new to selling my work but to continue to paint I have to have some basic materials. I am a poor (no money) artist although not quite starving at the moment things are very tight and to get supplies I have to sell something......seems a viscious circle. I am middle aged, self taught, can't afford but free lessons and let me tell you the free lessons on internet and books from the library, are mana from heaven. I am just starting to make home computer prints of a couple of my latest paintings into a basic card and will include a very plain envelope and hope I can sell a few and be able to put that money toward the computer ink and paper...right now I would paint on the barn door if need be. What I want to know is am I ruining any future hopes of being taken seriously should someone deem my work worth a second look?

Unfortunately for print makers, the word 'print' has come to mean any form of reproduction, whether giclee, or print from a home printer, or even a laser copy from the local copy shop. While we can't dictate what artists call their reproductions, from a club standpoint, hand pulled prints, which qualify as original artwork, should be labeled as such, and all mechanical copies should be labeled 'reproductions', not prints. That would go a long way in differentiating them. The most important thing is that the buyer knows what he is buying. A 'giclee' is still just a reproduction.

My preference is to show and sell original work, but I have reproduced a few of my watercolours. I was in an artist's gallery during a show when a client approached the artist about buying one of his framed reproductions. His answer to her was interesting, in that he suggested that she would be happier owning an original, and to put some money aside each month until she could afford one. This artist had no problem selling originals or reproductions and I was impressed that he could sense the client's true feelings and have the confidence and patience to wait for her to purchase an original. I do have a problem with the vast numbers of framed reproductions seen in all the retail outlets. The public sees so many reproductions that are referred to as "prints", that they start referring to anything framed behind glass as a "print". I think that this is one of the reasons that I sometimes hear people say, "I just love your prints." The public really needs to be educated, and our job is obviously cut out for us!

My message to Marg Millard is as follows: the painted image is unique to the artist as well - the creation of the painting is not just the material it's painted in, as we all know to our mental cost! So why not sell repros of our work? In addition to that thought: I prefer to sell a repro to someone who has loved one of my paintings but cannot afford the original, than to someone whom I dislike (yes this has happened!). Also the print can remind a person of an enjoyable exhibition.

It's been said already but bears repeating - giclees are not automatically reproductions. If I print one of my photographs on an ink jet printer - and that is really all giclee printers are - it is an original. It seems that the use of the term to mean reproduction is specific to the US - I certainly don't find it being used that way in the UK. The only time I have had my digital paintings printed as a so-called giclee, the printer could not match the quality of my Canon printer at home. At the time the term came into use the only inkjet printers available to most of us were poor quality and giclee served as a useful differentiation. High quality printers are now available at reasonable cost and the term has had its day. Unfortunately a lot of people are still spreading myths.

I believe giclees are getting a bad rap because too many of them are produced. I have produced them but not by the yard. I bought an expensive Epson Stylus Pro which uses archival inks too. I spent thousands on supplies to make them, but I haven't printed them for a year, the inks are so expensive. I also believe they should be considered originals as they are in a similar process like photographs. I spend hours upon hours adjusting the image on my computer just like a photographer would adjust his original image shot. I print so many proofs to get it exactly right or even better than the beginning work of art. Adobe CS2 and 3 have so many widgets to increase the enhancement of the image shot, it's amazing what they can do to re-invent it into a finer piece of art. I painted the art, the photographer did not paint the scene he/she shot. We both borrowed the image from nature most likely. But when I try to place a work like this into a show, they won't hang it stating that it is a reproduction. So, I will hand augment the giclee in acrylics to further the fact that it is original. This is being done widely in upscale galleries. Giclees are considered derivations of the original which is not an original according to Webster's description of derivation. So, it all depends how you complete the final product. I think hand augmented giclees by the artist should be regarded as more worthy and originals in their own right. I know of an artist whose original works are upwards of $20,000 to $60,000, his giclees are only $8,000 and people who love his work can only afford them and they are tickled pink to own one. There is room for everything in the art world. I won't quit trying to argue the fact that my giclees are original, but I quit trying to put them in my local community gallery. I don't want to fight about it, I live for peace, I just wanted to state my mind.

It appears that we need a new term for a painting where you put a blank canvas on the easel and make a painting using just your brushes and paints. That may be an easier thing to define and name than all the variations aided by technology.

I think the word "print" should be reclaimed by printmakers and repros should be called...yes....."posters". That's what they are. I see people paying $350.00 to get a repro framed while the actual paper it was printed on is worth 2 bucks. I have also been alarmed to hear people claim proudly that they have a real piece of art and they know so because it is signed and dated. They are not educated and that will always be. They should be allowed to pay little for a poster as long as they are aware it is just that, a poster...as for expensive giclees, expensive posters on canvas. I realize artists should have the opportunity to make repros and have a cottage industry if they like but they shouldn't be part of marketing that exploits the ignorant and demeans actual printmaking. I have my images reproduced on greeting cards. People know what they are getting that way and my originals are not devalued. I remember a time when you would purchase a Van Gogh Poster from a show or gallery. You would thumbtack it to a wall if you couldn't afford framing. Repros have become elitist in their own right.

Reproducing art, when there is so much good original art around and so many terrific artists, seems ridiculous to me. When I paint something, I want it to be one of a kind, and whoever buys it to have something that no one else has or can have. What ever happened to that notion? I feel like the Lone Ranger with my viewpoint - I don't even have a Tonto or a Hi Ho Silver among most artists I know. Guess I'm behind the times...

Make sure that you have a market to sell those "giclees"or even open edition prints or you will just be throwing your money away. A poor painting is always a poor painting and maybe we artists should put way more of our time into just painting a great painting and forget the retouchee giclees or whatever...

Cynthia Nelms-Byrne you are not alone. Check the statement at the bottom of my website www.arrowsinthequiver.com, it is what I believe, it is what I promote. Thank you Kemosabe.

I'm going to have to agree with Esther Williams here about what is the difference between a printed out digital file (photograph) and a printed out digital file of a Painting. Photograghers have to have something they need to call an original and with today's technology of the printer, that becomes their original. When in fact the original is actually the digital file or possibly the image in which they where looking at when they snapped the picture. Our digital files are the exact same thing and when printed out are the same "product" as the original photograph. A giclee is a giclee whether the file comes from a camera or a scanner. The true artist of the giclee is the printer/ computer operator who has the skills to color balance the "print" from the printer, to the original. I believe that the true printmakers are the ones with the most right to complain here. It has ruined their market with the confusion and overwhelming amount of images out there today. It's all a tough business. I also believe that if everyone were selling their reproductions as they printed them, that there wouldn't be any complaints about what they are called. And everyone here would be making them.

I think that what is clear here, from all the many and varied responses, is that artists do what they have always done: find their niche market and cater to them accordingly for their own success and happiness. I would venture to guess that many of those artists who scorn reproductions have never explored them in depth (either by investing in the equipment and/or marketing and selling them) or have done so unsuccessfully. Furthermore, as a publisher, books are, technically speaking, "reproductions" too. What would we artist think of every VanGogh, every Picasso, every Monet, being one-of-a-kind, only to be bought and looked at by one person. What about all you art teachers out there who hang the classic artist's posters in your classrooms and offices? Why should only one person be allowed to lay eyes on the beautiful images of the people out there who make them in order for them to be "real art"? One of the things that this brave, new technological age brings to this new generation of artists is COLLABORATION and the notion that art, be it YouTube or online public "galleries," is for all to see and experience. Certainly anyone who subscribes to this newsletter or posts on this blog can understand that. Make your originals or make your reproductions. What works for you is what works for you. It doesn't make anything better or worse. But, I would add, that technology makes it all easy to try if you change your mind.

Giclees, canvas, silver halide emulsion ie, photographic negative or paper, electronic display... all the same thing. Computer, brush, camera, lump of charcoal, again, all the same thing. The tool we use to help manifest that idea from our minds to the outside world.... and the medium which we choose to display or present that idea. I paint with oils, I shoot with a film camera (B/W), I shoot with a digital camera and I paint and draw using the computer. There is NO such thing as an original Giclee, there is such a thing as an original IDEA. Which as visual artists means an image. Other people call their ideas music, sculpture, technology, novels or architecture. It is the image that has the power to move you, good art, regardless of 'how' it was made or how it was 'displayed' will always sell, because good art touches us in ways we cannot express in any other way. It communicates something straight into our hearts and minds. This is what we forget as the paintings/prints become commodities themselves while the idea gets left behind. Good art could be printed on toilet paper and it shouldn't matter, but we as humans have this need to grip tightly to our ego, we want our legacy to live long beyond us, either by the artwork we create or the artwork we acquire, and increasingly purchases are based on the medium upon which the idea is presented. If it didn't matter we wouldn't care if an ink jet print faded after 2 years or whether an oil painting cracked and yellowed with age. We have this need to hold on so tightly... all is impermanent, even art, long after the Giclee is dust ideas will linger... So what do people pay for? The idea or the object? I'd rather communicate the idea and reach thousands, even millions, without anyone ever having to own the 'original'. Get your ideas out into the world people where they may do some real good! Educate your audience that it is the idea they are buying, not the paper it is printed on. Unfortunately a lot of art isn't worth the paper it is printed on Peace everyone