Fine art printing vs. printing

[Sigi]

Hello,

can someone provide a simple definition/difference between "Fine art prints" vs. "Prints".

Thanks

Sigi

[jjlphoto]

Perhaps fine art prints could mean it is up to gallery or museum standards? They started accepting C-Prints as a legitimate medium decades ago, so any Fuji Frontier, LightJet, LED, Durst Lambda, or other RA-4 process prints would qualify.

As far as inkjet, Giclee prints have gained acceptance, but standards are a bit vague. There are acid free 100% rag paper inkjet papers available, but what about the OBAs (optical brightining agents) used in the paper? What about the clay coatings these papers have? Supposedly they are buffered/nuetral. Inks? Epson pigment inks claims quite a high longevity. However, many folks seem to agree that a print made on such a paper with pigment inks meets the criteria of a fine art print.

And there are other types of digital printing methods as well. Dye Sublimation, Iris, etc.

But as far as just prints? Perhaps that is any old inkjet print of unkown paper, ink, etc. I make proofs and other prints that really only need a short life with cheapo papers like Premium Lustre, HeavyWeight Matte, etc. And if it comes out of one of my dye ink/office type printers, who cares then?

[dalethorn]

Hello,
can someone provide a simple definition/difference between "Fine art prints" vs. "Prints".
Thanks
Sigi

If you read some of the threads on printing and papers here, you'll see it's a lot more than just getting the right equipment and paper. There's a big learning curve to making consistent quality fine art prints.

[rdonson]

Overly simplified and generalized:

I can get prints from any drugstore, Walmart, Target, etc......  (little care taken in producing the print although the image may be magnificent)

A fine art print is something worthy of hanging in a prominent place.  Home, office, gallery, etc. - printed with care and expertise - generally with archival qualities befitting art work.  

Just my $.02


Edit:  of course this changes if you talk to a CMYK print press person...  :-)

[Wayne Fox]

seems to me a "fine art" print is not just about the printing process ... it's also in reference to the quality of the image itself.

[Geoff Wittig]

Hello,

can someone provide a simple definition/difference between "Fine art prints" vs. "Prints".

Thanks

Sigi

A print is a physical reproduction of an image by digital, photochemical or photomechanical means. (Total digression: by all means buy a copy of Richard Benson's The Printed Picture. It's a thoroughly wonderful book that describes in great detail all the methods used for printing images throughout history.) This can mean anything from a drugstore print or newspaper halftone to a huge hand-made Ansel Adams Moonrise, Hernandez.

I'd define a fine art print as something I'd proudly sign my name to, and worthy of hanging in a gallery. This implies archival darkroom processing for traditional black & white, pigment ink on paper with documented longevity characteristics for digital, or one of the few color darkroom processes that don't fade rapidly: dye transfer, Cibachrome/Ilfochrome, or Durst/Lamba/Lightjet on Fuji Crystal archive paper. It's a specific piece of art sweated over by the original artist, as opposed to a mass-produced poster printed by the thousands via industrial-scale offset lithography.

It also implies more than casual attention to the æsthetics of the image and the physical state of the print: no bent corners or creases, no smudges or fingerprints, and paper/ink appropriate to the artistic intention.

[titusbear]

seems to me a "fine art" print is not just about the printing process ... it's also in reference to the quality of the image itself.

of all the posted comments, that observation is closest to the truth....   but with one major caveat:

as an 'artist' I have a clear idea in my mind's eye what my art is.  But in more general
terms one has to ultimately agree with the following from one of the world's greatest
art collectors/ gallery owner (i.e. art is what the artist says is art):

There are no rules about art. "Sharks can be good. Artist's dung can be good.
Oil on canvas can be good." (my addition: photo prints on Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper
can be good).    "There's a squad of conservators out there to look after ANYTHING AN
ARTIST DECIDES IS ART."

Charles Saatchi     (one of Saatchi's gallery artist is Damien Hirst - who made $200 million
                             on his last auction of his works).

I think way too many photographers /printers are caught up in the anal-mindset of some nebulous
definition of 'perfection / specifications /et.al.'  as art' - instead of admitting that real 'art' is WHATEVER (quality /methods) necessary
to evoke the feeling the artist wants to evoke in the viewer.

[titusbear]

A print is a physical reproduction of an image by digital, photochemical or photomechanical means. (Total digression: by all means buy a copy of Richard Benson's The Printed Picture. It's a thoroughly wonderful book that describes in great detail all the methods used for printing images throughout history.) This can mean anything from a drugstore print or newspaper halftone to a huge hand-made Ansel Adams Moonrise, Hernandez.

I'd define a fine art print as something I'd proudly sign my name to, and worthy of hanging in a gallery. This implies archival darkroom processing for traditional black & white, pigment ink on paper with documented longevity characteristics for digital, or one of the few color darkroom processes that don't fade rapidly: dye transfer, Cibachrome/Ilfochrome, or Durst/Lamba/Lightjet on Fuji Crystal archive paper. It's a specific piece of art sweated over by the original artist, as opposed to a mass-produced poster printed by the thousands via industrial-scale offset lithography.

It also implies more than casual attention to the æsthetics of the image and the physical state of the print: no bent corners or creases, no smudges or fingerprints, and paper/ink appropriate to the artistic intention.

Are you a 'technologist' or an 'artist'?

The only thing that 'art' can imply is creativity (and the expression thereof - using  ANY and ALL means available to the artist).

  Starting before ManRay - 'artists' have manipulated various processes (to the point of both annoyance and ridicule by the 'establishment') in order to evoke feelings in their art that they strove to achieve.  Perhaps you need to see what 'hangs' in galleries like the Tate Modern, MoMA, et.al. - if you did, then you'd see that some 'attention to the aesthetics' is probably the least important factor in the creation of 'art' by artists.

A real 'artist' would, if his/her mind's eye required, have no problem printing on bend /stained paper, using long expired inks, with smudges, scrapes, et.al.  if it contributed to the their effort to evoke a feeling.  I'd like to try and put dilute acids in my 4880 carts to see how that works for printing on treated papers /metals.  

[titusbear]

as an aside to the discussion of 'art'.


there is a new magazine available that has gotten a lot of notice (for its content and quality):

Color: For Collectors of Fine Photography

The premiere issue (April 2009) has articles on Eliot Porter, Maggie Taylor, Saul Leiter and
Jeffrey - along with "Desiring Veracity: The History of Color Photography - Part One: 1840's -
1940's.

Color
PO Box 1529
Ross, CA 94957

Phone Orders: 415-382-0580

1 Year - 6 issues - $25.00

[Geoff Wittig]

Are you a 'technologist' or an 'artist'?

The only thing that 'art' can imply is creativity (and the expression thereof - using  ANY and ALL means available to the artist).

  Starting before ManRay - 'artists' have manipulated various processes (to the point of both annoyance and ridicule by the 'establishment') in order to evoke feelings in their art that they strove to achieve.  Perhaps you need to see what 'hangs' in galleries like the Tate Modern, MoMA, et.al. - if you did, then you'd see that some 'attention to the aesthetics' is probably the least important factor in the creation of 'art' by artists.

A real 'artist' would, if his/her mind's eye required, have no problem printing on bend /stained paper, using long expired inks, with smudges, scrapes, et.al.  if it contributed to the their effort to evoke a feeling.  I'd like to try and put dilute acids in my 4880 carts to see how that works for printing on treated papers /metals.

I explicitly left out subject matter and artistic intent because I thought the original poster was merely asking what distinguished a fine art print from the more pedestrian variety of reproduction. Certainly, there are artists who intentionally 'distress' print surfaces for a specific artistic effect; all well and good. I'm talking about more casual lack of attention to detail all too apparent in many prints. Surely you know what I'm talking about? Unintentionally out of focus, enlarged beyond what the file can support, poor color management etc.

We can talk forever about æsthetics (including the 'anti-æsthetics' of a Serrano or Basquiat), but I think that's a completely different discussion.

[titusbear]

[quote


again,  both a 'fine art print' (whatever that is - and crap galleries are full of the stuff / but only a handful make it to museums) and 'pedestrian variety prints' can be art.  Could be this discussion centers on photogs (or want to be photogs) attempting to do 'art', and 'artists'.  Technical discussions centering on focus, pixel distortion, color management, et.al. have no real place in the definition of 'art'.
Not all photographs are art - unless the finished product exactly matches the artist's intention for the emotion evoked.  Everything else are snapshots - pedestrian capturing a moment in time. (and to some 'artists' even that is enough).

re-title discussion -  Costco reproductions vs. technically perfect printed images

[titusbear]

I think another perfect example re: only an 'artist' can define what is 'art' (with intentional or unintentional 'errors' i.e. focus, gray scale, et.al.)   Perceived 'perfection of print' has little to do with 'art'.

In "Ansel Adams: An Autobiography" - he writes about Moonrise, Hernandez, NM (10/31/1941) -
that is was NOT until 1970's (>30 Years of trying) did he "achieve a print equal to the original
visualization that I still vividly recall."

Dozens of museums /collectors / (anal-retentive print critics) / and galleries-auction houses
fawned over the earlier prints, but to Adams - the artist - only the 70's image matched his
minds-eye.  The earlier prints sell for far more than the 'perfect' 70s print - but Adams obviously
knew which matched his 'vision /art'.  

[dalethorn]

I think another perfect example re: only an 'artist' can define what is 'art' (with intentional or unintentional 'errors' i.e. focus, gray scale, et.al.)   Perceived 'perfection of print' has little to do with 'art'.
In "Ansel Adams: An Autobiography" - he writes about Moonrise, Hernandez, NM (10/31/1941) -
that is was NOT until 1970's (>30 Years of trying) did he "achieve a print equal to the original
visualization that I still vividly recall."
Dozens of museums /collectors / (anal-retentive print critics) / and galleries-auction houses
fawned over the earlier prints, but to Adams - the artist - only the 70's image matched his
minds-eye.  The earlier prints sell for far more than the 'perfect' 70s print - but Adams obviously
knew which matched his 'vision /art'.

There's an interesting question here  - who has the higher call - those who admired, promoted, and/or purchased the original prints, or the artist and his ongoing revision of a work?  And is it really the same work when it's been revised?

[titusbear]

There's an interesting question here  - who has the higher call - those who admired, promoted, and/or purchased the original prints, or the artist and his ongoing revision of a work?  And is it really the same work when it's been revised?

think Adams himself answered that question.  He  likened the photographer to a composer - who created the original work, but the 'printer' as a conductor - who brings the image to life / to it's highest fruition.  Certainly it's the same 'work' - but interpretations of that work can be /are varied.

 In this case - Adams was both (as opposed to say the Weston family combine).   Like, say Lucian Freud, who agonizes over a painting for years - only the artist/creator of the physical image (in this case - printer) knows when it is done enough to match the intrepretation of the goal.   Individuals who purchased the initial 'moonrise' prints - in my estimation - fell prey to galleries, promoters, and the always questionable "numbering:  A of xxxA prints" mindset.  (I don't think many, if any, took the time to talk with Adams /understand his process - and if they did, would have certainly realized that the early numbered prints were works in progress towards a yet unachieved goal).  [which, in their own right place/ identify them as important pieces of 'art']   They got caught up in the 'art critic's /photography critic's' web - how do critic's actually know - in their 'inspired interpretations' - what is actually the mind's eye goal /intention of the artist... or how close the 'presented' work actually is toward that goal?  More often than not - money, investment, snob-appeal, prestige... trump 'understanding' in art.

  It's a failing that has existed since art has been widely available commercially.  As certainly exists today (see  Thompson, D. "The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art").