Call for Artists, Making Money at Juried Art Fairs, Craft Shows and Festivals
I'm sure I'm opening a can of worms with this question…but here goes...
Recently a friend did a show where an artist took giclee's and painted extra elements on them them and then sold them. (Not saying who, what, when, or where) My friend didn't see how the artist was describing them to customers. Obviously the artist had to tell them it was a reproduction that was being embellishing with added painted details. But how did the artist represent them to the public or more importantly to the show the artist was doing this at.
Art Fairs often ask for "all original work" but how would one describe the piece after application of this process? As each piece starts with the same base giclee of an original painting but becomes a different work every time embellishments are added. Does that make them an original then? Still a reproduction?
I'd love to hear what everyone thinks…especially art fair jurors and promoters.
Not sure where I am on the whole giclee thing but this puts a whole new spin on it for me.
What about you?
I just answered you in another thread? Please post once only.
It's still a reproduction. The original exists prior to reproducing it. It may have more value now but it's certainly not an original piece of art.
Yes you did just answer in another thread. I posted here first and then I thought it was more of a jurying question so to be sure I got answers I was looking for I posted in the jury category as well. And I stated that in the other post but did not have a chance to state it here.
As each "embellished giclee" is different from another regardless of the fact that it started as a reproduction doesn't that make it a one of a kind piece then…and thus original in that aspect?
It adds value but doesn't change it from being a reproduction to an original.
We need some painters to respond.
(Maria, I am deleting the other one you started. For another day, it is easy to change the category in these discussions. See up there next at the top right after "Art Fair Discussions" it says (Change)? Click on that and pull down and choose the category you want to use.) Thanks for starting a new discussion.
Obviously the other person was interpreting the rules as they wanted to. There is no way an "embellished" reproduction is an original. Reproduction negates original.
Thank you for that information Connie, I will keep that in mind for future posts.
We refer to drawings on original reproductions as Remarque. That term refers to when an artist makes an original print (etching, aquatint, stone lithograph, etc.) and then in the margin or near the signature does a little original drawing on it. Somehow that term got borrowed and used to describe an original drawing on an offset mechanical reproduction back in the 1980's or thereabouts, which is similar to what you are talking about here about it being on a giclee; it's an embellished mechanical reproduction.
I suppose the maker of these could get away with it if he described them as "Original drawing on fine art reproduction" or something. I dunno how far he'd get in the biz doing this.
Go to the Peter Max gallery in Las Vegas, you'll see lithographs/prints/giclees with a dollop of paint on it, the salesperson calls it an original because the artist touched it.