/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Yes.

Yup

Can't you just download the printer and go to staples and print it?

>>4097387
>Can't you just download the printer
Man I wish

>>4097358
I worked in fine art publishing for years. Limited edition is a scam, most of the time. They very rarely appreciate in value, as well. The most I'd pay is a couple hundred for a well printed poster on good paper, signed - and not an inkjet like most posters are these days.
I have some posters from artists who inspired me - I have a framed, signed Stanley Mouse print, that was a black and white litho, that he hand water colored, and signed and numbered when I was at his studio (he does open houses all the time), and got to talk for a while. I paid $250 - and was fine with that, because he didn't have to pay a poster company a commission. $2k? No fucking way. I want original art for that kind of pricing.
Hell, even our signed posters where I worked were signed by machine. They made the claim "Only 2500 printed" - but legally that only means we couldn't print more AT THAT SIZE. We did print more, at different sizes.

>>4097358
it's probablly a giclee.
Oh wait this is /ic. A Gicless is an archival print, Depending on the quality of the print it should last 50yrs or more, it's the ink and paper, plus an extensive printing time for printing high resolution.
>>4098095
If it's hand signed and numbered with a limited print series, say 100 it will also be more expensive. Most art doesn't appreciate, actual famous artist prints can.

>>4098214
Glicee is not guaranteed for 50 years. They hope it is - it hasn't even been around for 50 years.
From Wiki:
Giclée (/ʒiːˈkleJ/ zhee-KLAY) is a neologism coined in 1991 by printmaker Jack Duganne for fine art digital prints made on inkjet printers.[1] The name originally applied to fine art prints created on a modified Iris printer in a process invented in the late 1980s. It has since been used loosely to mean any fine-art, most of the times archival, printed by inkjet. It is often used by artists, galleries, and print shops to suggest high quality printing, but since it is an unregulated word it has no associated warranty of quality.[2]"

"Glicee" is really more of a marketing term than anything. It's still an inkjet print. You can get "archival" papers, but it's still an inkjet on a piece of paper. They HOPE the inks last 50 years, but they really don't know, because there aren't any 50 year old prints.

Most signed prints value is from the signature, and IF the print run is legit small, and in demand, over time. Most aren't. It's a bit of a scam - worked in fine art publishing, I know. We used the same paper and ink as anyone else, the only "value" was the certificate and the machine made signature on it. At least we were doing offset printing, but even that will fade in 50 years.

Actual prints as in artists doing printmaking as a form of art is way different than fucking posters, same with actual darkroom prints with photography. Both require a shit ton of skilled work

>>4098095

Signed by machine? What the hell man

>>4097358

Am I the only one who would rather just get a high resolution png?

>>4100339
>>4098095

A couple of days ago I almost spent ~$2270 on a signed Limited Edition embellished Giclee of a Todd White

The only reason I got close was because I didn't know that Giclee is just an Inkjet, his "hand finished" varnish embellishments are done by assistants, there are already fakes in circulation, and it might not even hold value because he cranks out about eight new pieces a month anyway

I don't know if I'm happy I saved the money or disappointed because I liked the piece

>>4100644
how the fuck can you spend that much money on a regular basis? 4 grand! don't act as if it affects you dude, you middle class son of a bitch, you can afford to lose it, apparently.

>>4100645
What?

>four grand
Two grand
>regular basis
It would have been the most I'd ever spent on anything
>you can afford to lose it, apparently
It would have cost a big chunk of my life's savings and would be worth more than my car and my worldly possessions put together

Take it easy on me man

>>4100723
You're literally retarded if you spend that on a print and not an original drawing done in archival grade ink, paint or media with an ASTM light-fast rating of I or II

>>4100727
>You're literally retarded if you spend that on a print and not an original drawing done in archival grade ink, paint or media with an ASTM light-fast rating of I or II

That's why I didn't buy it man
The original is going for $150,000 but that's beside the point

>>4100723
dude you should not spend this much if you are not rich. I get the urge, i want to buy 200 usd sneakers myself, but that would be a noticable chunk of my monthly income, and i hold my hand. It feels right not to.

>>4100731
The original being 150K is retarded too. Post the link of this shit so we can see what you actually considered being so nice.

>>4100731
Just googled todd white, you for sure are mentally deranged if you think any of those bugs bunny space jam style drawings of women are worth that kind of cash