Why I Don't Make Giclees

Well, I'm crossing into delicate territory here. I try in this blog to keep the stuff that I write that has a point of view as solely mine. I say that the whole thing about giclees is delicate because I know a number of good, trustworthy, talented artists that do, in fact have their work made into giclees.  I also know a number of icky artists that pawn poorly printed artwork off as"original" and cheat the customer. But, first things first.

It's laughable that the term gliclee has come into vogue in the last few years. Just as the terms, "faux", "vintage", and "retro" have come to signify  the simpler terms of fake, very old and old. Giclees are reproductions of original artwork (through the advances in computers, printing, and inks), that are often printed upon canvas or textured papers. In some cases, if the work has been faithfully reproduced, it is difficult to tell the original from the reproduction. More often than not, the work reproduced is a mere shadow of the original and will fade horribly in a very short time. Unlike lithographs or silk screened work that is numbered, supervised and signed by the artist with a limited edition, this new method of printing is often designed to duplicate paintings without regard to a limit of the number of copies that will be made. There is a huge range of quality in the reproductions available to the public. Buyer beware cannot be stressed enough.
To add insult, artists are having their work reproduced on canvas, then paint an original stroke or two with pigment that is strategically placed on the work, and sign it passing it off as "original" work. Unethical too loose a term for this.

To complicate matters further, the successful artist, who is selling regularly, can afford the not insignificant costs associated with digitizing the work and subsequent printing using quality, archival, materials. The struggling artist often cannot afford to pay premium prices for reproduction and sometime resorts to reproducing their work using little more than home printers attached to their laptops. This paradox hardly makes the playing field fair, but there it is.

I have heard stories of artwork being passed off as original that was being represented by fairly reputable dealers. There are also the many articles existing about fake signed and numbered prints by Picasso, Matisse, Miro, etc. Again, buyer beware.

I have decided to just not enter this whole game. It can be costly and in some ways, in my mind, devalues the original. There are people that think that it is great that for those that cannot pay 1200.00 for the original, it is just as good to get a smaller print for only 45.00.  Not me. I like the real stuff. Always have. The choice remains for artists to decide what it is they want their work to remain and say about them long after they are gone. I would hate to think that a cheapo print of my work that was perhaps matted and framed was pitched into the trash years down the road because of horrible fading. Better to just not go there.