These days I have very mixed feelings about giclées, but I am often asked what they are and how one goes about getting giclées made.
My very first giclee was of this piece, Pythagoras QED and it’s just as well because the original is in the Fitzwilliam Contemporary Calligraphy Collection and I have have excellent photos of it, have had access to the image for magazine articles, have made greetings cards and still have a few giclées for sale.
What is great about giclées? Well, you can put beautiful affordable artwork in your home and you can’t (superficially) tell the difference between the print and the original. And if it was never going to be an investment, that’s fine too! So from the buyer’s point of view its fine!
So, what exactly is a giclée? It is just a French term for a high quality ink-jet print BUT, these prints are done using archival ink on 100% cotton paper, smooth or texture, and the result, when framed looks exactly like the original. (if there was no real gold or embossing on the original). Often it looks better as the colour can be contrasted slightly more. Apparently they won’t fade in 100 years. But if you spill water on one, it will dissolve the ink just as with your computer-printed stuff.
I sometimes even add real gold to my giclées to make them more special and worthwhile as with the Paythagoras one. A giclée is usually numbered as a limted edition. So here is the first ethical dilemma: You can legally make whatever size edition you like e.g. 900 and number them accordingly, and then you can change the size and make another edition! This doesn’t sound right to me! Moreover, you can print them in dribs and drabs, which is very cost effective, but there is a lot of good bookkeeping required not to muddle the numbers.
This is how you have one made: First of all get the artwork professionally photographed or scanned and colour corrected by a specialist digital printing company. It is usually scanned at at least 1200dpi, so that it can be enlarged without loss of quality. This can cost anything from £15 – £50.00. Colour correction can be really tricky especially when there are yellows involved. Also the printing is going to be limited by what colours are available e.g. you could never reproduce flourescent colours using CMYK printing pigments. They will then run some samples.
Costing of printing is done per square centimeter and you can save on mounts and the labour of mounting by having nice big white borders all round, but it will cost more. Otherwise you can have them beautifully mounted. You are supposed to sign them on the white border and number them there too e.g. 31/200 means that there is a limited edition of 200 and this is No.31. But they don’t have to be a limited edition – it just makes them more saleable.
And then of course you have to package – wrap them in cello bags – and market them and this is often not that easy. If you think that ‘calligraphy doesn’t sell’ try selling 100 pieces the same. The most popular giclees that I have had made are the Pythagoras one, the Rose window and the Sea Holly. I have learnt a lot about the market though. Obvious things like people don’t want to buy paintings of exotic flowers, they want their own favourite flowers. Just like in calligraphy everyone wants the poems that they learnt at school and which are ironically copyrighted 🙁
Now here is another dilemma. because of the labour and cost in reproducing them, mounting and packaging etc. you need to sell them for a reasonable amount. And then you find that this is often much the same price as printmakers charge for their lino-cuts and screen prints. This seems unfair to me! Have you any idea how much work goes into a lino-cut? A watercolour may take a day or two, a lino cut will take at least a week to make a smallish lino and then you have to print it.
And what is worse, because the public often don’t understand the difference between a digital print and a printmaker’s print, it has done a lot of damage to printmakers selling real etchings, screenprints, lino prints and woodcuts. The giclée has devalued these which is really sad. Of course, historically the printmaker’s print is worth more, but just as typographic designers, musicians and film-makers have their work pirated, so the giclée has hijacked the value of printmaking.
My final dilemma is this: It takes a lot of time going backwards and forwards getting giclées made, checking them and packaging them. Watercolours are relatively quick to produce and you can stay in your studio and preserve a sense of sanity without having to drive around and having done all of that you still have to market them. So, instead of being an artist suddenly you are a taxi-driver, production manager, factory worker (packaging) website manager updating your website, salesperson. Where’s the serenity in this?
I recently heard some sound advice: Don’t go the giclée route until you are famous and your work sells like hotcakes!
From now on, I’m going to take this advice!
fab article Lin. And I agree – getting giclées done is a pain in the butt.
well said!
Such an interesting article again Lin- thanks so much for sharing. I am often asked if I do giclee prints by folk who are interested in an original piece (usually made for exhibition) but who cannot afford the original. Exploring giclee has been on my “when I have the time I MUST get round to looking into that” – but haven’t so far and this has made me rethink whether there is any merit to it being on my endless “to do” list at all. What I did do this year (and only because it was 2 colours – black and red) was get some screen prints done. I liked this as it’s a craft process and there is still a texture left on the substrate. Of course there is still had the cash investment, mounting, cellophane, stickers, pricing, marketing and finally selling involved but the process wasn’t painful (I used “Another Fine Mash” in Lewes.). What process do you use for reproducing your artwork/calligraphy for use on cards? Once again – many thanks!
Hi Tina
My cards are just inkjet on my own computer.
http://www.limetreesstudio.com/2015/08/all-about-making-greetings-cards/
You are not obliged to promise archival life on a greeting card.
And yes, screen printing is much more satisfying, because it’s real ink on real paper and you personally pulled the screen across it.
The public needs to understand this, as there is a richness to the screen prinitng. Mind you, giclees are also rich and look like the originals. For the work involved in doing one giclee to keep an original makes it more worthwhile to do a second original. After all, Leonardo did two ‘Madonna of the Rocks’ – one for the Tate and one for the Louvre!!!
Good info on Giclee, except that the inks will not dissolve, run or bleed if it gets wet.
Hi Anita
One of mine did – could it be that yours are on canvas and varnished.
It might be worth me doing more research on this one.
Lin
For what it is worth, I don’t buy giclees. If I can’t afford the original, I won’t settle for a giclee, mostly because of the issues and problems that Lin described so well. It is VERY difficult to tell the reproduction from the original, even when seen side by side. For that reason my first thought was that the giclee “cheapened” the original, and secondly, it would be very easy to pass off a giclee as an original. And that does not work to the benefit of the artist, IMHO. I am a bit of a luddite in this respect, and it’s not likely I will change my mind. I’ll buy original art that I can afford, that speaks to me, that I want to live with. It doesn’t have to be a Miro, a Bacon, or a Warhol (and probably would NOT be). Art shouldn’t be a vanity thing, after all. It SHOULD be an expression of life or some kind of truth or emotion, or whatever Art does mean. I want to know that when I touch a piece, I am touching the surface that the artist touched.
Hi Carol
I don’t personally own any giclees. But whenI have had them made I have always ensured that the original is a different size.
I do think that giclees have had their hey-day however, as did prints – that is for people who want original art. And people who are happy with prints will be happy with giclees.
I was referred to this post by a good friend who is an accomplished calligrapher and artist.
I am a photographer and printer who has specialized in art reproduction for almost 40 years. For most of those years, I worked with film, paper, and chemicals, but for the past four I’ve switched to digital media and done thousands of digital prints on two top-of-the-line inkjet printers.
While Lin is certainly a superlative artist, she is less informed about “Giclees” than she might be, and this post contains a number of inaccuracies. It also contains some opinions that are at variance from my experience — which may just be a function of differences between the situation in the UK and that in the US — and I disagree with her conclusion: when “your work sells like hotcakes” you will have no financial interest in having reproductions made, as you do while you’re still — like most artists I know — trying to make a living without having to wait tables or tend bar.
Rather than clogging up this area with the details, I’ve posted a response of sorts on my website at http://jpastorphotographics.com/Lin-response.html; this page can only be accessed directly by that link: it is not accessible from any other page on my site or elsewhere.
Since most of you are probably not potential clients (you’d have to live in the vicinity of Philadelphia, PA, USA in order to be one), I have no pecuniary interest in setting the record straight. My only interest is in preparing artists to deal intelligently with Printers if and when they do decide to have inkjet reproductions made from their original artwork, whether as prints or cards.
-Jon Pastor
Hi Jon
I have posted your comment because your article is interesting although I feel some of the “inaccuracies” are rather minor.
I am a member of Oxford Printmakers and here many professional printmakers sell their work at a similar price to what people charge for giclees – because we are in a depression in the UK and they feel quite angry that the public at large do not know the difference between a giclee and printmaking. I was at Art in Action (22,000 visitors) and people still kept asking what a giclee actually is.
At no point do I underestimate the quality of a giclee or the fine work that you so. You certainly have your place in the art market!
Perhaps my mistake was the title where I could have written “My truth about giclees” or “My feelings about giclees” because I made no secret about this being a subjective article.
I have seen calligraphers who are struggling to sell work wondering about going the giclee route; but they will still need to frame and market their work. The conclusion is very obviously just my opinion. Perhaps the conclusion should have read “I don’t think it’s worth going to the expense of having giclees made until you have established yourself in the marketplace.”
Thanks for taking the trouble to respond so thoroughly – I appreciate it. My information is based on having worked with just two excellent reproduction companies. Lin
Thanks, Lin, for taking the time to respond. You’re right that some of the “inaccuracies” are minor, but even a minor one can have significant consequences. For example, it’s not unusual for a vendor to charge for a scan based on resolution, and so scanning at 1200 ppi might well cost more than scanning at 600 ppi; in addition, a 1200 ppi scan will be four times the size of a 600 ppi scan, which can make working with it more difficult.
I also acknowledge that what I presented as a fact regarding the minimum scan resolution is an opinion, but I have had 2x enlargements of 600 ppi scans viewed by artists and other digital printers, none of whom suspected that they weren’t 1x, and all of whom expressed astonishment and incredulity when told that it was an enlargement. I’m confident that up to at least 2x, what I said is correct given a high-quality scan and reasonable skill on the part of the printer.
The situation in the US is somewhat different from that in the UK: we are (finally) rebounding financially, and while it’s true that small, relatively simple* “real” prints are often in the same price range as digital prints, they seem to me to have different markets — at least here. The printmakers at shows like the one upcoming at the Delaware Museum have — at least in previous years — been very happy with their sales, and this includes the one who was set up right next to us last year, with whom I actually had a couple of chats about digital vs conventional prints.
[*This is not so true of larger or more complex prints — e.g., multicolor prints requiring multiple masters and careful registration: my wife does white-line woodcuts, and while there is only one block involved, each print requires multiple impressions, and each color is painted onto the block individually between impressions.]
I actually made the switch from analog (wet) printing to digital because my wife was having trouble selling original hand-drawn and -lettered (as opposed to printed) pieces, which took her long enough to create that she couldn’t afford to sell them for amounts that most people seemed to be willing to spend.
Since then, I’ve printed several editions of books that she’d previously have had to create individually by hand, and hence sell for more than she’d be likely to be able to get. The hand-bound copies done from reproductions of the original pages, on the other hand, she has been able to price such that she’s sold half of one edition for a total of more than she’d have gotten for the original — which has yet to sell.
Your point about embellishing by hand — which you made in passing — is actually quite relevant and important: the customers for my wife’s books are still getting a handcrafted work, even though it’s based on printed reproductions of the pages. Also, given the relatively poor reproduction of metallics in inkjet inks, painting over the gold, silver, and other metallics in a print from an original containing gilding or other metallics both enhances the print and makes each one unique, both of which make it more attractive to buyers.
I’m happy to enter into discussions — and even friendly arguments 🙂 — with you or any of your readers, or to offer any information I can provide on any aspect of the inkjet reproduction process. There’s nothing in it for me but the fun of it and an opportunity to share what I know: I only work with clients who are local enough that we can meet face-to-face, because that’s the only way to evaluate a print, and I suspect that most of your following lives more than a short driving distance from me.
Again, thanks both for replying and for being so gracious.
-Jon
Hi Jon
This makes interesting reading. Today I have to finally proof two books – Dance and ABC Uncials, so that they can be printed which will be hand bound by me as soon as possible, by Monday for my exhibition (you’ll see the invite on Thursday’s blog) so I can’t give this due time now. But what you are saying resonates well!
Reader’s input would be good too.
Lin