7 – “No Giclee” News and Symbol Proposals
Here’s Our First Symbol Proposal
Debra James Percival
Artist/Instructor/Non-Toxic Printmaker Proposes:
And this from Tallinn Graafikakoda Studio
Loit Joekalda, Association of Estonian Printmakers
We have used traditional handmade printmaking techniques only 60 years at our Graafikakoda –studio of Association of Estonian Printmakers (in 1947 The Experimental Studio of Graphic Arts came into being in the building of Estonian Artists Association in Tallinn). Our first proposal for image “no giclee” is a trace or print by our old master Voldemar Kann of his own hand (Voldemar Kann has made prints in our studio for 50 years, he has been very good master of traditional techniques, lithography, relief print and all techniques of intaglio).
This one’s from Janet Badger, member of the Women Printmakers of Austin:
World Printmakers' Print Workshop Central 
I like this. I was thinking along the same lines, although something a bit simpler, like just the hand with a check mark
through it. But this is good, and gets across the idea of the
wheel on the press.
In reply to Keith Howard’s email, I agree with Keith that signing down the prints helps. But the problem is that unscrupulous artists who are dealing in offset reproductions and giclees, etc.,
have already adopted the vocabulary, both written and visual, of
the hand pulled print and I suspect that it would not be long before they too would be signing their offset reproductions down with words like relief, lithograph, etc., and then saying that the original WAS a relief or a lithograph or a screen print.
I much prefer the idea of using a universal chop. The other issue still remains however; what to do with people who use
the chop to chop their reproductions, which will happen. There
needs to be some sort of fine for this.
Audrey Feltham
December 11, 2008 at 7:56 pm
The top one is too complex, the bottom one is better but less clear. But since I don’t intend to use this symbol, whichever you choose will not matter to me. I maintain that the best way to deal with this problem is education. Even if the giclees are clearly marked as reproductions, people won’t care unless they learn to see the difference for themselves . This cannot happen through chops – only through education and experience. Those not willing to take the time or make the effort will buy repros of some kind. OUR market is the educated, discriminating collector… who would probably be offended by a chop such as you propose.
Cecilia Lieder
January 2, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Interesting, I couldn’t do any better as realism isn’t my strength, but both of the proposed images are confusing. I know what they’re supposed to stand for, but just seeing them would confuse me. For me it would be more viewer-friendly to use words – something as simple as “giclee” with the slashed circle universal “no” sign over it.
Sara Youngman
January 4, 2009 at 12:39 am
I agree that the symbol idea is too complex and would just annoy the buyers that are already knwoledgable. We certainly wouldn’t use it at the Curwen Studio.
As I have said before the people that buy Giclee prints don’t care about the method, they just like the image. It might be galling to us, but that is the way it is.
Education at every opportunity is the only way forward, but it will be a slow process. If we can convert one person occasionally then so much the better.
Jenny Roland
January 7, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I am putting together a list to put on a links page – May I include you?
Susan Clark
July 30, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Yes, of course, and thanks.
Mike Booth
August 2, 2009 at 6:27 am