Newbie questions
Re: Newbie questions
IMO, I've always gone on the concept that over 30 is generally starting to push it, 50 is meh, 75 is too high. Many printmaking techniques, such as drypoint, limited the quantity that could be produce because the image would massively degrade the higher the run size. I like how those limits have become 'accepted' with regard to edition sizes.
Re: Newbie questions
+1,000,000jak88 wrote:For the hell of it and out of curiosity, I took this tortured issue outside for one expert opinion ... I asked a VP in Sotheby's Prints Dept the following: Are signed edition screenprints considered "fine art"? Her answer in full ...
"Yes. Andy Warhol utilized the screenprint technique on canvas (these are referred to as his 'paintings') and on paper (prints). Other important contemporary artists such as Josef Albers, Chuck Close, Keith Haring, Jasper Johns, Ellsworth Kelly and Roy Lichtenstein (to name a few) have worked in this medium as well. We consider screenprints done in small editions to be Fine Art. However it should be noted that the screenprint process is also used in making commercial edition posters in which case, it would be considered more ephemera than Fine Art."
So, for Sotheby's at least, prints on paper are viewed as "fine art" provided they are "small" editions and not created as "commercial edition posters."
Now, how small constitutes a small edition?
Re: Newbie questions
so does Murakami, Jeff Koons or Hirst produce "Fine Art"? pretty sure they rarely pick up a paint brush (although I think there was one Murakami exhibition fairly recent that he actually painted stuff.. but it was a relatively small show)gpt104 wrote:add another in agreement here. Not fine art, highly desirable prints in some cases (sorry not AK for me). From what I've read here, the fine art term is painted with far too general of a brush stroke imo.mose wrote:Shonquan wrote:agreedcirca77 wrote:I agree with Comiconart and Easycraig on this issue. Prints are prints whether or not Shepard pulled the screens himself. Somebody burns/pulls the screens, just because Shep did it one day and somebody else did it a different day doesn't make it any different to me. But hey, that's just me.
In the end it doesn't matter - this conversation is like trying to list exactly which prints are "grails" and which are not. Its a personal thing and the application of the term itself does nothing to the value of a piece. Desirability in all its forms does that.
- superfly snuka
- Propaganda Engineer
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:26 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: Newbie questions
Nice work. Thank you.jak88 wrote:For the hell of it and out of curiosity, I took this tortured issue outside for one expert opinion ... I asked a VP in Sotheby's Prints Dept the following: Are signed edition screenprints considered "fine art"? Her answer in full ...
"Yes. Andy Warhol utilized the screenprint technique on canvas (these are referred to as his 'paintings') and on paper (prints). Other important contemporary artists such as Josef Albers, Chuck Close, Keith Haring, Jasper Johns, Ellsworth Kelly and Roy Lichtenstein (to name a few) have worked in this medium as well. We consider screenprints done in small editions to be Fine Art. However it should be noted that the screenprint process is also used in making commercial edition posters in which case, it would be considered more ephemera than Fine Art."
So, for Sotheby's at least, prints on paper are viewed as "fine art" provided they are "small" editions and not created as "commercial edition posters."
Now, how small constitutes a small edition?
Since the editions of the pre 2000 prints were around 100 and from what we understand some, if not alot of those prints were either never sold and /or used on the street, these prints would fall under that category.
Re: Newbie questions
Follow up with Sotheby's to the $20,000 question: how small is "small" edition?
Me: How "small" an edition of prints on paper would still qualify as fine art? Under 100? Under 500?
Sotheby's: Depends on the artist
Me: So an edition of 500, for example, is not necessarily too big to stop calling it fine art?
Sotheby's: It depends on the artist. Damien Hirst has done print editions that large which we would sell, but generally if you see a Picasso or Miro for example in an edition of 300 or above it is a reproduction. I'm sorry but we evaluate everything on a case by case basis and there are rarely blanket answers to questions like this.
Note: Obviously Sotheby's has an interest in positioning prints as fine art, since that would likely command higher prices and fees for the auction house. But they are certainly a central player in the art market.
Me: How "small" an edition of prints on paper would still qualify as fine art? Under 100? Under 500?
Sotheby's: Depends on the artist
Me: So an edition of 500, for example, is not necessarily too big to stop calling it fine art?
Sotheby's: It depends on the artist. Damien Hirst has done print editions that large which we would sell, but generally if you see a Picasso or Miro for example in an edition of 300 or above it is a reproduction. I'm sorry but we evaluate everything on a case by case basis and there are rarely blanket answers to questions like this.
Note: Obviously Sotheby's has an interest in positioning prints as fine art, since that would likely command higher prices and fees for the auction house. But they are certainly a central player in the art market.
Re: Newbie questions
This and your original Sotheby's post...beautiful work. Simply beautiful.jak88 wrote:Follow up with Sotheby's to the $20,000 question: how small is "small" edition?
Me: How "small" an edition of prints on paper would still qualify as fine art? Under 100? Under 500?
Sotheby's: Depends on the artist
Me: So an edition of 500, for example, is not necessarily too big to stop calling it fine art?
Sotheby's: It depends on the artist. Damien Hirst has done print editions that large which we would sell, but generally if you see a Picasso or Miro for example in an edition of 300 or above it is a reproduction. I'm sorry but we evaluate everything on a case by case basis and there are rarely blanket answers to questions like this.
Note: Obviously Sotheby's has an interest in positioning prints as fine art, since that would likely command higher prices and fees for the auction house. But they are certainly a central player in the art market.
You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
~Malcolm X
~Malcolm X
Re: Newbie questions
+1,000,001Wheels wrote:This and your original Sotheby's post...beautiful work. Simply beautiful.jak88 wrote:Follow up with Sotheby's to the $20,000 question: how small is "small" edition?
Me: How "small" an edition of prints on paper would still qualify as fine art? Under 100? Under 500?
Sotheby's: Depends on the artist
Me: So an edition of 500, for example, is not necessarily too big to stop calling it fine art?
Sotheby's: It depends on the artist. Damien Hirst has done print editions that large which we would sell, but generally if you see a Picasso or Miro for example in an edition of 300 or above it is a reproduction. I'm sorry but we evaluate everything on a case by case basis and there are rarely blanket answers to questions like this.
Note: Obviously Sotheby's has an interest in positioning prints as fine art, since that would likely command higher prices and fees for the auction house. But they are certainly a central player in the art market.
Re: Newbie questions
Why would you agree with this? It is my understanding that by this person's definition either all prints are "fine art" or none (because the edition size is too large). I thought your whole point was only prints prior to a certain time period were considered fine art. This expert makes no such distinction.robotoil wrote:+1,000,000jak88 wrote:For the hell of it and out of curiosity, I took this tortured issue outside for one expert opinion ... I asked a VP in Sotheby's Prints Dept the following: Are signed edition screenprints considered "fine art"? Her answer in full ...
"Yes. Andy Warhol utilized the screenprint technique on canvas (these are referred to as his 'paintings') and on paper (prints). Other important contemporary artists such as Josef Albers, Chuck Close, Keith Haring, Jasper Johns, Ellsworth Kelly and Roy Lichtenstein (to name a few) have worked in this medium as well. We consider screenprints done in small editions to be Fine Art. However it should be noted that the screenprint process is also used in making commercial edition posters in which case, it would be considered more ephemera than Fine Art."
So, for Sotheby's at least, prints on paper are viewed as "fine art" provided they are "small" editions and not created as "commercial edition posters."
Now, how small constitutes a small edition?
Wanted: Obey prints on Postal Paper
- libertarian
- Propaganda Engineer
- Posts: 849
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:47 am
Re: Newbie questions
I'm not on this board as much as I used to be..other priorities in life and all that. But this is an interesting conversation and I'll add my thoughts (aka opinions!) in case they matter to somebody that reads them someday...
1. Printmaking is an art form, screenprints/serigraphs are fine art. However,
2. There is a distinction between original prints and prints. I defer to the words of the IFPDA on the matter -
"The IFPDA defines an original print as a work of art on paper which has been conceived by the artist to be realized as a print, rather than as a reproduction of a work in another medium."
-from http://www.ifpda.org/content/collecting ... aq#t2n3783
3. I see all of Shepard's screenprints as fine art, but personally prefer his earlier pre-2000 original prints for the various reasons others have mentioned. That preference means I'm willing to pay more for them than I would for comparably interesting images produced post-1999, particularly non-original prints.
4. I've seen many of Shepard's modern small edition items on collaged paper, canvas, and other supports and am not moved by them. The most I could say of any of them is that the larger items are impressive for their size but still leave me feeling apathetic. I do not feel this way in the presence of pre-2000 screenprints. This is purely my opinion and shouldn't be taken as meaning anything more than that.
1. Printmaking is an art form, screenprints/serigraphs are fine art. However,
2. There is a distinction between original prints and prints. I defer to the words of the IFPDA on the matter -
"The IFPDA defines an original print as a work of art on paper which has been conceived by the artist to be realized as a print, rather than as a reproduction of a work in another medium."
-from http://www.ifpda.org/content/collecting ... aq#t2n3783
3. I see all of Shepard's screenprints as fine art, but personally prefer his earlier pre-2000 original prints for the various reasons others have mentioned. That preference means I'm willing to pay more for them than I would for comparably interesting images produced post-1999, particularly non-original prints.
4. I've seen many of Shepard's modern small edition items on collaged paper, canvas, and other supports and am not moved by them. The most I could say of any of them is that the larger items are impressive for their size but still leave me feeling apathetic. I do not feel this way in the presence of pre-2000 screenprints. This is purely my opinion and shouldn't be taken as meaning anything more than that.
Re: Newbie questions
And then there is this. Most expensive print ever sold at auction:
http://www.businessinsider.com/christie ... -auction-7
Please move if being discussed elsewhere....
http://www.businessinsider.com/christie ... -auction-7
Please move if being discussed elsewhere....
JErikR
Re: Newbie questions
Wow.JErikR wrote:And then there is this. Most expensive print ever sold at auction:
http://www.businessinsider.com/christie ... -auction-7
Please move if being discussed elsewhere....
Re: Newbie questions
Bumping this because I thought it was a good read.
Re: Newbie questions
Thanks for bumping, good read for us newbs. Appreciate it.