Giclee vs. serigraph ???

[joshualinergallery]

Ok so I want to get some opinions here. Basically looking to get people's thoughts on different print mediums. If we were to release a print by an artist, lets say for arguments sake Greg Simkins. Would you guys prefer a giclee on canvas or a serigraph? If they were the same size edition (let's say 50) and the same price (let's say $500), the same dimensions and the same image would you rather have a stretched canvas giclee or a hand pulled fine art serigraph on high quality paper that was approx 20 screens?

Let me know what you prefer and why.

Thanks!

- Josh

[doktor]

Serigraph.
Its an artform in itself producing one so there is that bonus factored in.

Personally I am not so keen on the printed on canvas then stretched direction for prints.
I feel a little like they are pretending to be a painting on canvas when they are not.
Its a personal thing. I just have a bit of a problem with that...

[virtu]

Serigraph over Giclee any time.
Hand made over machine any time.

And if the artist pulls the serigraph himself it's considered more collectible.
Also, if the artist is not reproducing an original painting but creating multiple originals thru the serigraph medium then it's an Original Serigraph & 100% more collectible.

Eyvind Earle created many original serigraphs by hand not reproducing an original painting/image.

The new generation of collectors were raised on Giclee and many seem to not care (know) what the reproduction methods for prints are in general.

Back in the day seasoned collectors would never touch anything machine produced (except cheap Ltd. posters) but went after more traditional forms of reproduction with the artist involved thru the entire process giving a signed & numbered limited edition a higher status in a collection/galleries.
These hand made limited editions would never be called a print and it would be an insult to call them prints as far as the artist or printer was concerned.
The term "print" was only used for machine produced reproductions with most being off set lithographs until the giclee/iris print reared it's head in the late 80's.
At first no gallery would carry giclee as a fine art ltd. but thought of giclee's as high end posters which is what they were intended for.

Now most collectors lump all limited editions into the Print category.

I prefer serigraph/silkscreen over giclee anytime.

[oldfartatplay]

Definitely serigraph. These giclee prints are just a bit better that giant postcards. I've got a some serigraphs from a few years back and they have a completely different look to them.

[thecreep]

Definitely Serigraph. I agree with Doktor about canvas prints, they kind of don't make sense. It reminds me of when I used to work in recording studios and people would buy all this top notch digital gear, and then buy all these expensive plugins for their computer recording gear that would make the audio sound like it was on vinyl, or would just degrade the audio all together.

I think one of the best examples of Serigraphs, and what shows how much of a work of art they are is the Decoder Ring print from Tara Mcpherson. That print was 18 layers and looked amazing. It sold out super fast. It was however only $250 in an edition of 100.

[spidah]

Serigraphs are a whole other level to giclees. Just picked up the Seonna Hong serigraph done by Modern Multiples here in Los Angeles and its one of the nicest prints I have ever purchased. So nice! The hand painted serigraphs are even better.

[lowpro]

I fully agree with everyone else in this thread that a 20+ color serigraph would be the way to go. I used to collect a lot of the Dr. Seuss Secret Art series prints (prior to having exhausted all the classic pieces) and the publishing house, Chase Art, utilizes the serigraph to reproduce all of Theodore Geisel's paintings. These prints are far and away the nicest reproductions of original artworks I've ever seen. The depth of color and texture are truly a sight to behold. Plus, the giclee has become so commonplace in this genre that it would be great to show and provide collectors something new. From the looks for the teaser image, I can guarantee it will sell immediately at whatever price, and I think folks would appreciate you going the extra mile with this print release.

And props to you, Josh, for even bothering to get some input from the collectors who will undoubtedly be the one's purchasing these. It is indeed a rare thing these days. Very cool.

[doktor]

We all get a free one for our valued customer insight, right?
Right?

[ruud035nl]

I don't know enough about the porcesses to make a usefull comment. Isn't the image (how many the collors etc.) and the amount of detail of any influence on what method is best suited for the job?

Can any piece be serigraphed? Won't for some pieces giclee be a better option? Or can one say that they ALWAYS prefer serigraph over giclee.

The only artist of which i own both giclees and serigraphs is Tim Biskup, and to be honost i don't see that much difference between serigraph and giclee.

[thewalrus]

My vote goes for the serigraph - handmade verses digital reproduction wins everytime for me

[greenhorn1]

Jul 28, 2008 0:40:22 GMT -8 ruud035nl said:

Can any piece be serigraphed? Won't for some pieces giclee be a better option? Or can one say that they ALWAYS prefer serigraph over giclee.

I think this is an important point. Take Horkey's Osprey Elatrium screenprint for example. It's absolutely amazing what they achieved with the serigraph method but I have no doubt that a giclee would have produced a more accurate copy of the original painting.

I think it all depends on the original artwork. IDEALLY yes, always go screenprint, but in reality look at the artwork and if you can produce the image to the same standards through each method. If it's new art being specifically designed for the project then I'd go serigraph hands down.