Prints or Reproductions?
by: Blake Ovard
Most people don't understand that the term "print" does not mean the same thing as the term "reproduction". Many people spend countless hours "discussing" the difference between the two, whether they each have quality, and even if either of them should be allowed to be sold. I hope I give you some answers to these questions, or at least give you a little information.
Let's start with a definition of the terms "reproduction" and "print". You will see various sources quoted in different ways to try to prove one point or another. One person I know always uses a definition by the Print Council of America (associated with Harvard University), for one part, and the American Print Alliance for another part. I don't have a problem with someone wanting to do that if they don't really want to discuss definitions from the same source, but I do think that consistency is the key to having any standard definition. I also think that any source used for a definition should be of a modern reference, because printing techniques and printing materials change with time. Some of the sources mentioned haven't updated any of their definitions for almost 40 years. I also prefer to use a source that EVERYONE is familiar with. Many people outside of a specialized group have no idea who some of these other reference sources are. I'm not going to go into the specifics of each process of printing here, but I will work on a "virtual handbook" of the printing processes for the PACA website. (http://www.proartists.org)
So, for definitions, I'll use the source that everyone recognizes as the definitive source of definitions: Merriam Webster's Dictionary
Merriam Webster's little dictionary defines "reproduction"
as:
1 : the act or process of reproducing
2 : something reproduced : COPY synonyms REPRODUCTION, DUPLICATE, COPY,
FACSIMILE, REPLICA mean a thing made to closely resemble another. REPRODUCTION
implies an exact or close imitation of an existing thing (reproductions
from the museum's furniture collection). DUPLICATE implies a double or
counterpart exactly corresponding to another thing (a duplicate of a house
key). COPY applies especially to one of a number of things reproduced
mechanically (printed a thousand copies of the giclee). FACSIMILE suggests
a close reproduction often of graphic matter that may differ in scale
(a facsimile of a rare book). REPLICA implies the exact reproduction of
a particular item in all details (a replica of the Mayflower) but not
always in the same scale (miniature replicas of classic cars).
Merriam Webster's little dictionary defines "print" is:
(1) : a copy made by printing (2) : a reproduction of an original work
of art (as a painting) made by a photomechanical process (3) : an original
work of art (as a woodcut, etching, or lithograph) intended for graphic
reproduction and produced by or under the supervision of the artist who
designed it.
Ok, from just this we can see that a print can be a reproduction, but
a reproduction may not necessarily be a print. This is where the terms
start to vary.
Anytime a piece of art is copied by photomechanical means it is a "reproduction".
It doesn't matter if the process has a fancy sounding name, like "giclee"
(pronounced "Gee clay", it refers to the process, and means
"squirting"), or if it has a cheap sounding name like "photo
copy", because they are basically the same thing. Both are produced
by the basically the same means. Only the actual quality of the materials
used will be the difference. (Sometimes there isn't much of a difference
in those either.) Technically speaking a "reproduction" could
be called a "print" because it is printed (#1 definition of
print) and is a reproduction of an original work of art (#2 definition
of a print). Typically these are called offset prints, because they are
done on an offset press.
I think that #3 definition best fits what a "print" is usually described as, and is what is generally used when calling something "an original print".
"Prints" are, by definition (3), an original work of art (as a woodcut (block print), etching, silkscreen (serigraphy) or lithograph) intended for graphic reproduction and produced by the artist who designed it. These are images that are produced to be multiples. They are most often done completely by the artist, and are most often done in small runs, or editions. (On all of the "prints" that I produce as serigraphs (silkscreen) the run, or edition, is 45) Traditionally, this was because the image started to deteriorate after a certain numbers of "prints" are produced. The stones wore down, the ink started to clog the recesses of the etching, or the screen, and the wood cut wore down. Print #1 would be very different from print #100. The other reason that some print runs are small is that the artist actually becomes physically tired from the printing process (unlike machine produced "reproductions"). Most "print" editions are less than 200.
Can "reproductions" be done in limited runs? Sure they can, but they don't have to be. "Reproduction" runs are commonly well over the 200 number that most all "print" editions fall under. Why? Because they can. "Reproduction" editions typically are in numbers of 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1200, 1500, etc. There is little difference in the image of #1 or # 1000, or even #10,000. The more of the "reproductions" produced, the more money can made off of them. Many artists have been led to think that "reproductions" with fancy names should be rather expensive to produce, and thus should be collectibles. I asked for some samples of "reproductions" from some of the bigger printing houses, and will tell you what I found.
I found that their quality of materials was good. I wasn't surprised by that, they have to justify their prices somehow. Technology has been the most obvious in the materials area. Inks have gotten better, printing has gotten more mechanical, plates last longer. As you can guess, prices from these big companies were HIGH. If you see an artist selling "reproductions" of their work, know that they probably paid about 75% of what they are charging just for that "reproduction" to be produced. I personally couldn't afford to have my prints done at one of the big national companies. They would charge me more than I charge the customer for a "reproduction". I prefer to set up my own printing, and have complete control over the printing process.
If "reproductions" are just basically "copies", why
are they made, and why do people buy them instead of "prints"?
That's a good question, and I'll try to answer it.
"Reproductions" sell, because reproductions are a copy of the
art that the customer would like to own. Sometimes a customer can't afford
an original, sometimes they don't want too, or the original is a different
size. A high quality "reproduction" (or offset print) is a good
alternative for many of these customers. Some artists offer these "reproductions"
for their customers, or offer "reproductions" for sale so that
more people will be able to own a piece of their art.
OK, but what about the artists who make multiple images on purpose using one of the traditional methods? They are called "print makers" and the goal of a print maker is to make multiple "prints" of the same image, whether he carved the design into a piece of stone or wood, or etched it onto a plate, or made a screen of it. They want more than one person to be able to have their images as well. The difference, of course, is that the artist actually has direct control over all aspects of the production. Usually. There used to be a difference in the quality of a "print" and the quality of a "reproduction", but that difference has all but disappeared due to the strong advances made in the quality of materials.
So, now you're asking what does this all boil down to, and how come when I go to some art shows or festivals they allow "prints" but not "reproductions", and some allow both? It all boils down to this: "prints" (definition #3) are ALWAYS considered an "original" work of art, because each one won't be exactly like the next. There may be 45 of the same image, but each one will have tiny imperfections from the previous, until the point where it might become noticeable. This is due to the limitations of some of the traditional printing processes. "Reproductions" are not considered an "original" work of art, because the printing process has progressed such that #1 and #1000 are virtually identical. Because of this, some festivals won't allow items that aren't considered "originals", some will. I have no problem with either, though there has been some debate on the "festival circuit" among artists about shows allowing "reproductions". My personal opinion on this is that each show has to make the decision of its own. There are many shows where the market is there and in need of lower priced reproductions. This is not a quality issue, as I have said before, quality is virtually identical.
I offer both "prints" and "reproductions" of my work, and I do it simply for the affordability factor. "Reproductions" are priced at about half the price of the "prints". Do I offer both at the same show? No, I don't. However, the only reason I don't is because I don't want to confuse any of my customers. I probably spend a great deal of time trying to educate people on the difference between the two, but at a show, I usually don't have adequate time. I want my customers to know exactly what they are getting, and what great quality it is. I also want them to have a complete understanding as to what goes into the art piece that they are purchasing. I know that when a happy smiling customer walks away carrying with them a piece that I have done, they will still be smiling when they look at it years down the road.
Which do I think is a better deal? Depends on why you are buying a piece
of my art. If you are buying several pieces just because you really like
what I do, want my art all over your house, your friend's and neighbor's
houses, and don't really care if the are going to go up in value, buy
the reproductions and save some money. (Each comes with a certificate
of authenticity, as do the prints and the originals.) If you really like
my art, and want to have pieces that may go up in value in the future
(some of my pieces from several years ago recently sold at auction for
more than I am currently charging), then buy a print or an original. It
really does depend on why you would like it. Buying a gift for a friend?
Same rules apply. Depends on how good of a friend it is. If you're buying
for a guy or girl and you're not sure how long it will last, get the reproduction.
Buying it far a gift for a loved one or someone you want to impress? Get
the print or an original, or whatever you can afford.
Email: cebostudios@hotmail.com
Website: www.blakeovard.com
Copyright Blake Ovard 2002. All rights reserved