Newbie questions

Questions, Questions, Questions. You got 'em? We'll answer 'em!
User avatar
halopigg
Giant
Posts: 4943
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 3:11 pm
Location: LA!

Re: Newbie questions

Post by halopigg »

<1989
Who's got my old stickers?
User avatar
mose
Subcomandante Emeritus
Posts: 4020
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:05 pm
Location: Jersey
Contact:

Re: Newbie questions

Post by mose »

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.
User avatar
robotoil
Giant
Posts: 6306
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by robotoil »

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?
+1,000,000
User avatar
rhinomilk
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:57 am

Re: Newbie questions

Post by rhinomilk »

gpt104 wrote:
mose wrote:
Shonquan wrote:
circa77 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.
agreed
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.

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.
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)
User avatar
superfly snuka
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Newbie questions

Post by superfly snuka »

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?
Nice work. Thank you.

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.
User avatar
jak88
Giant
Posts: 1756
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:11 am
Location: The Other Left Coast

Re: Newbie questions

Post by jak88 »

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.
User avatar
Wheels
Posse
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:49 pm
Location: Lost in the Midwest

Re: Newbie questions

Post by Wheels »

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.
This and your original Sotheby's post...beautiful work. Simply beautiful.
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
User avatar
robotoil
Giant
Posts: 6306
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by robotoil »

Wheels wrote:
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.
This and your original Sotheby's post...beautiful work. Simply beautiful.
+1,000,001
User avatar
circa77
Giant
Posts: 4158
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: California

Re: Newbie questions

Post by circa77 »

robotoil wrote:
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?
+1,000,000
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.
Wanted: Obey prints on Postal Paper
User avatar
libertarian
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:47 am

Re: Newbie questions

Post by libertarian »

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.
User avatar
JErikR
Giant
Posts: 1788
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:41 pm
Location: Jet City

Re: Newbie questions

Post by JErikR »

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....
JErikR
User avatar
robotoil
Giant
Posts: 6306
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by robotoil »

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....
Wow.
User avatar
jjttdw
Mono Enojado
Posts: 3209
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:17 am
Location: Dixie

Re: Newbie questions

Post by jjttdw »

Bumping this because I thought it was a good read.
jlee
Punk
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:39 am

Re: Newbie questions

Post by jlee »

Thanks for bumping, good read for us newbs. Appreciate it.
Post Reply