Journal entry for October 5, 2001

Today's summary: Limited vs. Unlimited Prints, Original vs. Reproduction Prints.

I used to do a lot of printing and monoprinting back when I was going full-bore with my digital artwork. And, as you possibly gathered from my Aug. 22, 2001 journal entry, it's still a spiteful environment out there for digital work... not to mention underinformed.

I'm so tired of people claiming digital monoprints can't possibly be "REAL originals", or can't possibly be "REAL prints". Since I do plan to get back into digital printing (maybe some limited edition reproductions of my razorbugs?), I figured this informative explanation would be worth sharing.

Issues related to digital prints and reproductions, limited editions.

There is way, way too much messiness with regards to terminology for prints. It's blurring the line between reproductions and original prints. Even though I am a digital printmaker myself I absolutely agree that the reproduction market has confused the issue further. And, of course, there's many ways to make a reproduction (poster): lithography, screen printing, digital printing, etc. Just to make matters worse, you can use litho, screenprinting, and digital printing to make original prints, too.

I personally believe that artists have a responsibility to be totally up front with collectors about exactly what they're buying. Otherwise, they risk giving the entire media a bad rep. Most collectors don't know any better, and it's just not fair to sell someone a limited reproduction as if it's a limited original print. I actually spell out exactly how the print was made on the Cert. of Authenticity, and I even put the lot #'s for the ink cartridges I used.

What's more, many states (such as California) legally require full disclosure in the form of a 'certificate of authenticity', and have specific requirements for what that certificate should disclose.

Fine art printing needs a set of commonly accepted standards for terminology... different interpretations run rampant, and lead only to confusion. Artists, collectors, galleries, and frame shops never seem to quite know the difference between a reproduction, an original print, unlimited or limited editions.

So... let's go over some terminology. These definitions are really standard for the entire art industry... Of course, digital printing can be a grey area but I will explain how it fits. There are two key ideas when discussing print terminology, and contrary to popular opinion, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive...

Key Idea #1: A print is either an original print, or a reproduction. It's one or the other. There is no in between. This is actually a separate concept from whether it is limited or unlimited (see idea #2).

• It's an original print ONLY when the artist's basic intention was to actually make a print. Each print IS the original work of art. In other words, if I make a woodblock print, that's an original print. If I make a mezzotint, that's an original print. If I make a monoprint, that's an original print too. If I make a photo print, that's an original print. Generally speaking, original prints are usually pulled by hand, by the artist. There are some exceptions (this is where it gets into a gray area), for example, if the artist makes the plate and an assistant prints it.

  Digital prints /can/ fall into the original print category, but only if the artist's original intention was to produce prints (not slides, not photos, etc). In such a case, the print is the original artwork, and the digital file is the "plate", essentially. Needless to say there is some hostility to the idea of calling a digital print an original print, since there is naturally a perception that digital prints are easier to make than hand-pulled prints... but, it still can fit the definition of an original print. It's just a different media. Obviously a color digital print won't be worth as much as a color woodblock print in most cases, but this is also a function of edition size (for example... what about a digital monoprint?).

• A reproduction is a print or copy of an existing original artwork. If I did a painting and then produced prints depicting my painting, these would be reproductions. Needless to say, reproductions are not worth as much as the original artwork, and they are correspondingly not worth as much as original prints. Just to make matters more confusing, you could also conceivably make reproductions OF an original print (for example, posters of an Albrecht Durer woodblock print). Without adequate disclosure to collectors, more confusion can arise if the reproductions are numbered and signed, or if they're printed on nice paper in a relatively archival manner, etc (but, more on this in Key Idea #2).

Key Idea #2: A print edition is either limited, or unlimited. It's one or the other. Just like idea #1, there is no in between.

• When an edition is unlimited, it means just that... there is no limit on the number of prints created. Posters definitely fall in this category. That means they're not worth much, of course... since in theory, an unlimited number of other people might own that same piece of paper. Generally speaking when people print notecards of their work (like I do sometimes), that's unlimited. Unlimited editions are basically always reproductions, since there is just no way to print an infinite number of copies of an original print. (Original prints are automatically limited by the durability of the woodblock, the plate, the photo negative, etc.) Even though you could theoretically print unlimited quantities using a digital file, I feel it's really not appropriate to call the prints of an unlimited edition originals, not if you want to describe it using traditional printmaking terms. In such a case the digital file might be considered the original.

• When an edition is limited, it means only a certain number of prints will ever be produced, whether they're originals or not. This total number might be limited by the physical deterioration of the plate, or limited by choice of the artist. If the artist chooses, the limit may only be ONE, as with a monoprint. When you sign and number a print ("15/100"), you are guaranteeing that there are only 100 prints in existence, and that this is the 15th acceptable print produced. In all cases the collector is relying on the artist's word that yes, there really are only ten or a hundred or whatever prints in existence. The commonly accepted practice is to "strike the plate" (in other words, destroy that which would allow you to make more prints). In digital printmaking the equivalent practice would be to delete the original source file.

  Limited editions are always worth more than reproductions, based on the degree of rarity (small editions are worth more). With certain photographic printing processes, commercial screenprinting/litho, etc... sometimes you see huge edition sizes of 3000 prints. Needless to say those prints are worth much less than a smaller edition. In order to combat the influx of non-original limited edition prints, many juried shows and galleries will only allow prints from small editions. "Small" is of course a number determined by the curator or show organizer.

So, there you have it. Every print on the planet is either reproduction or original, and either limited or unlimited. Actually, you could classify every artwork on the planet that way, not just prints.

Of course print quality, color, and edition size (if limited) can alter the market value of a print. What's more, some prints are "hand-altered" in order to give them more of a note of unique originality. However, given equal edition sizes, the following should give you an idea of the relative value of the different kinds of prints...

• Unlimited reproductions aren't worth much money at all. What's more, they're usually very cheaply printed and totally non-archival.

• Limited reproductions are worth more than unlimited, but still not worth as much as originals. Limited reproductions give printmakers who make original prints real headaches.

• Unlimited originals don't really exist in the world of print, I think... not unless you somehow count photos and certain digital printing processes. Even so, in those cases I might consider the negative or the digital file to be the original.

• Limited originals like woodblock prints, etchings, etc are always worth the most. That's because they're rare by their very nature, they're typically hand-pulled, and so on. Hand-pulled originals are typically going to be worth more than digital originals.

• Severely limited originals are worth the most of all, of course. Tiny editions. Monoprints would definitely fall into this category, and if you wanted to expand the definiton beyond printmaking... paintings, drawings, etc.

Too bad not everybody is familiar with all of these ideas. Despite how I've explained it here, print terminology is often not considered clear cut. Even so, these definitions are really standard across the art industry... whether you're talking about digital prints, or not.