PDA

View Full Version : Original, Original print, Art print, Giclee, Poster, how would you label?


painterswife
03-10-2010, 01:38 PM
I thought this might be a good discussion for us to have with regards to sales in the art business.
This would be my take on how I would label.

Original art - one of a kind in the medium that was initially used

Original Art print - a print from anything from a woodblock to a digital file that is unique and different from each subsequent print in the edition.


Print - an copy or reproduction of an original that is identical to the original in all aspects other than size.

Giclee - a print that should last longer and hold its color better produced using a digital file and special inks and substrates.

Embellished Art Giclee- artist themselves adds to the giclee with additional art materials often resulting in a unique piece of art. (Often labelled mixed media art)

Embellished Giclee - embellished by someone other than the artist

Poster- a print usually targeted for mass distribution and afford-ability and therefore uses lower costing inks and substrates.


Each person chooses for themselves what is more valuable or desirable to them, so this is not about what finished product is better than the other, just how we each would label them.

Are there other industry accepted words that have not been mentioned? I am unsure how a copy of a statue would be labeled properly.

Greg Long
03-10-2010, 02:35 PM
Original All original works
woodcut/linocut/silkscreen ... print all hand pulled prints
Reproduction all copies/repros whether Giclee, poster or other, embellished or otherwise.
new/mixed media original or plate Digital art and photography

cjorgensen
03-15-2010, 02:36 AM
I really like your definitions. But don't forget to make Blank Greeting Cards too! :)

it'sALLart
03-18-2010, 07:30 PM
I think "Poster" indicates more of an advertisment vehicle rather than a pure art print. Usually has a bigger emphasis on message and typefaces, etc. Just an FYI....

McKeeJane
03-18-2010, 09:53 PM
To me, a 'poster' is a reproduction on thinner, lower quality paper with lower quality ink...usually (but not necessarily) with a gloss and in a larger format.

GKW
03-19-2010, 12:23 AM
Jill,
I like how you worded your descriptions.

painterswife
03-19-2010, 09:36 AM
To me, a 'poster' is a reproduction on thinner, lower quality paper with lower quality ink...usually (but not necessarily) with a gloss and in a larger format.

That is what I see as a poster as well. The kind they sell for $20.00- 30.00 in the art museum gift shops. I find the prints are usually signed by the artist as well.

it'sALLart
03-19-2010, 10:08 AM
Well, not necessarily...

Posters can be on really thick stock, watercolor paper, top-grade printing paper, etc. They are printed in a variety of methods, silk-screen, hand pulled, litho, 4-color press... I have a huge one that advertises an Adolph Gottlieb show that is on paper so thick you could barely fold it.

They are, at times, total freebies, handed out as marketing tools at shows or events. In the advertising/marketing world I'm in, posters are really more about the content than the quality, but we can all agree to disagree. :-)

painterswife
03-19-2010, 10:20 AM
"In the advertising/marketing world I'm in, posters are really more about the content than the quality"

That really says it all doesn't it. You are talking advertising and we are talking art.

I do however agree that it is about the content not the quality. Posters are to get the image out there not really about quality or longevity.

it'sALLart
03-19-2010, 10:31 AM
LOL.... posters aren't art! That's my point! :-)

(later) When you say poster, you're using an advertising term. They are, by their very nature, advertising.

painterswife
03-19-2010, 10:48 AM
I understood that as your point but I don't see it that way.

It may not be original art, but to me, the fact that it is a reproduction (of what ever quality) does not make it advertising as opposed to art. The same would go for a recording of a piece of music. It is still art.

it'sALLart
03-19-2010, 10:53 AM
Not to put too fine a line on it, but...

If the music had an announcer talking over it the entire time, then it would be more like a poster, IMO, since posters usually have some kind of written message, the artist's name, or "VISIT BEAUTIFUL MAINE" at the bottom or right across the image, for instance.

That's really what draws the line for me. There might be a repro of an artpiece within the poster, but it's still primarily meant as a marketing tool, even if it later is framed and treated as "art" and sold as such.

painterswife
03-19-2010, 11:10 AM
Well all my husband's original artwork has his name on it. I guess that would then technically be advertising not art.

it'sALLart
03-19-2010, 11:23 AM
I'm not sure how to respond to that. I thought we were discussing something but you seem to be reacting negatively for some reason. What I'm stating is pretty much universally accepted, it's not new or unique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poster

painterswife
03-19-2010, 11:41 AM
No negative response. I just don't see how putting an artists name on the bottom of a poster makes it advertising as opposed to art.

As a teenager in the 70's posters were the way we could afford art on our walls. Poster shops were everywhere and they all had an art section.

And if I quote your Wikipedia link.
"Posters are also used for reproductions of artwork, particularly famous works, and are generally low-cost compared to original artwork."
Nothing about advertising in that sentence.

This is a discussion and was started to try to understand why and how others describe the different labels on art. I am trying to understand yours.

RobinZ
03-19-2010, 01:50 PM
Well all my husband's original artwork has his name on it. I guess that would then technically be advertising not art.

Painterswife, there are art posters that are just the artwork. Those, I wouldn't agree are advertising.

Then, those are posters that have the artwork, the artist's name and the exhibit where the show is, those ARE advertising or commemorating shows and I think that was what IAA was trying to communicate.

Your husband's original paintings, unless he has painted event and exhibition information across them, are not advertising or commemorating an exhibit so would not be considered advertising.

painterswife
03-19-2010, 02:40 PM
Kind of like a postcard.

It can be an ACEO/ strictly a piece of art, or a small advertisement that is handed out to promote your art complete with contact info.

it'sALLart
03-20-2010, 04:58 PM
posters that have the artwork, the artist's name and the exhibit where the show is, those ARE advertising or commemorating shows and I think that was what IAA was trying to communicate.

Yep. :-)

I've seen very few printed items called "posters" (almost none) where there isn't some kind of large text or message written. I looked at Posters.com and found only one.

Here's one I did for a show I had last year. It was a pretty popular handout, but I still have a few left.

http://www.itsallart.com/postersm.jpg

Horsa
03-20-2010, 07:32 PM
To me "poster" still means those large format, inexpensive, paper tghings we covered our walls with. Some were advertising or movie posters with a comercial message, some were just images.

You can still find them for sale at Walmart as posters.