Chris Rusak
November 12th 2008

I know there are billions of opinions on this, but I am sick of giclee being clumped together with art.

Giclee, for anyone who doesn’t know, are high pigment load inkjet printer prints. A computer prints these pictures, not a human hand.

I think it is dangerous for artists, of any skill level or financial means, to promote the use of giclee as art, because it severely undermines the creation of handmade editions in traditional formats, like lino, screen, and litho prints.

For artists (and designers) to push inkjet prints as art is sad, to me. Why don’t we just xerox from here on in? I realize, completely trust me I’ve had this debate before, that some people believe they cannot afford, time or money, the effort to make or have made, hand-made prints…

Artist (and designers) should be out there looking for starving artists who have the capability of creating editions of their works, in collaboration. It is a great networking tool, it is good business, and it is a great service to those artist-printers out there, and to artists of all time, to keep the spirit of printmaking alive, by hand.

Not by inkjet.

admin
November 13th 2008

Chris, that’s an interesting point you raise. I used the tag of art as it seemed to be the most generic coverall tag for the printed work (maybe I should have used prints).

I agree in principle with what you are saying, but giclee does have its merits; it allows art to be reproduced to a high quality level and then sold.

Given that individual artists need to sell their wares to stay profitable, it seems reasonable that they may have to opt for this method as a pose to a traditional printing method.