This has been a question I have agonized over for quite a few years.
I have many artist friends which do make prints of their paintings. Some people just run copies off of their printers, while others will take their paintings to a printing company which uses regular ink and there are some that go to the extra expense of having prints made in Giclée.
Is Giclée better than the regular ink from printing company or your home computer? Laser printers use a fine powder and fuse with heat while ink jet printers uses fine ink that is sprayed onto the paper. Giclée uses a laser printer. Any print that comes from a laser printer is referred to as a Giclée print.
The Definition : Giclee (zhee-klay) - The French word "giclée" is a feminine noun that means a spray or a spurt of liquid.
The word may have been derived from the French verb "gicler" meaning "to squirt". (1)
The word Giclée implies class and prestige. Companies that do the Giclée prints usually make a high resolution digital scan of the original painting then they print onto a substrate using archival ink. Hopefully the substrate (paper, canvas, metal...) is archival too. Many artists have invested in the larger printers so they can print from home on demand, while others use professional printing companies.
I have spent many years and hours of investigation, trying to come to a decision. Some artists charge a lot for their prints and others do not. I have heard of several people referring to them as posters and nothing more. I know several people that used to collect paintings from a specific artist and they stopped collecting their work soon as they found out these artists are making prints of their original paintings because they felt it had devalued the original painting they had purchased. The artist's name has soured in their mouth, you can hear it in their voice & see it in their face when they say the name or participate in a conversation about the artist. There are other people that only collect prints. Whether they are trying to save money or space because you can roll them up is a good question. Maybe it's because they're easier to pop in and out of frames enabling their artwork to be constantly changing. I don't know the true reason behind their train of thought, but I believe it is every art collector's personal decision.
Just as I believe every artist has to make their own personal decision whether to print or not.
I usually do not buy prints personally. I'd rather have the original. Because I also feel that it devalues the original paintings. Sort of reminds me of the Indian superstitions about photographers taking a picture of them – they thought it took a piece of your soul or spirit. Maybe that's the little bit of Indian blood that's in me, could be the same reason why I've come to the decision that I have. Maybe its nothing to superstition or maybe is because I have listen to the general public (strangers) in their opinions of the prints.
I, personal, do not want to spend several hundred dollars (or more) on a painting, only to find out that they made fifty or hundred prints from my painting. Yes, I am saying "my" painting, because I did pay the money for that piece of work and I expected it to be in "original".
Have I ever bought and prints? Yes. Did I feel guilty about it? Yes, with one I did, but on the others I did not. The one that I felt guilty about, I bought as a gift for my mother. She loved the original painting, but it was far beyond either our means. She was very emotionally involved with the painting and months later she was still talking about it because she couldn't get out of her mind. She was wishing she had the money for it and was actually considering a bank loan in order to have the funds to purchase it. The artist that created this painting did make prints of all of her paintings. Eventually, I did buy a print for my mother- that was very expensive too, but this was for my mother, after all. The other prints I have purchased are slightly different in as much as the original will never be sold. It will remain in the private collection of the artist. These were exquisite charcoal drawings that the artist spent hundreds – literally hundreds, of hours on each paintings. As you know, charcoal are very sensitive to movement and sealing them is not an adequate option. So many people loved her charcoal paintings and wanted to buy the originals, that she decided to make prints of them. Because these drawings are in the artist's private collection, I do not feel it has devalued the work of the original. I actually feel honored to own them. They are among my most prized possessions.
It's funny how different circumstances can form different opinions.
Listening to the public and listening to the artists expressing opinions about prints have also made it harder for me to make a decision. I have, literally, listened to both sides of the argument. For me personally, I should've made the decision earlier, because whenever somebody asked me if I made a print a particular painting, I would feel very uncomfortable, becoming squimish and sometimes I feel the question is very distasteful. My first thought is that these people are very cheap. Which maybe an inappropriate thought. My second thought is, how do I explain to a buyer that wants original painting that I have made prints of it? Should I lower the price of the original painting because I "stole" the image from the painting? How would the person feel, after spending several hundred dollars, if the next-door neighbor shows them a print of the same painting that they bought, for a fraction of the cost of the original painting? How can I face the buyer afterwards? Would they ever want to buy another one of my paintings? You can see my dilemma.
Years ago I had joined the website
http://fineartamerica.com/artists/joy+mcmicken. Very nice website, I like the way it was laid out. Initially, I uploaded some of my paintings. I was repulsed and quite upset to find out that the website was to sell prints of the originals. Decisions, decisions. Still trying to decide how I felt about making prints of my original paintings. Eventually, I took those paintings down and my website sat unused for quite a few years while I try to come to terms with the decision.
Just recently, I finally came to a compromise. I believe it's a fair compromise. I know many people may see it is as very fine line between my two decisions. The paintings that I do Pléin Aire or from my creative zone, will be sold strictly as originals. My compromise is; I will also make prints, but I would make a conscious decision that the painting I am going to create is for printing only and that the original will never be sold. I will think of that painting as a "proof" for printing purposes only. They will be put in a special file expressly for prints only. I have cards printed to sell locally. And I also have put the "proofs"on my fineArtAmerica website so that people can use them to make prints, either to be framed as a painting or to be printed on things like totebags, shower curtains, cell phone cases, bedspreads…
I never recommend any thing without trying it first. So I ordered 2 totebags; one from a graphite drawing & one from a color painting. I was very pleased with the quality of the totebag- they are printed before they are sewn together. The graphite print did not fade out or become invisible. The color print did not become pixulated or lose the fine details. Needless to say, I do recommend this site to everyone. Its rare to find good quality now-a-days. I have uploaded a few paintings & will be adding more as time goes on.
I believe I have made a very ethical decision and compromise concerning prints. I am satisfied with my decision and frankly, I'm surprised it took me so many years to come to that decision.
