Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Resistance to digital prints  (Read 8259 times)
pgpgsxr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« on: June 03, 2007, 07:52:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Just wondering what you feel is the current situation in the art world towards digital prints? Are they starting to be accepted or is there a long way to go yet?
 Cheers Paul
Logged
ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2007, 08:37:05 AM »
ReplyReply

There is definitely some hesitancy towards digital prints, but it's getting better. I think many gallery owners realize, whether they like it or not, that digital printing is the future, though there are still a few holdouts. One gallery owner I know refuses to stock digital prints as she considers them "phony" art, but has no issue selling lithographs. Idiot!

Chuck
Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
thompsonkirk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2007, 06:23:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I believe it is declining rapidly.  For example, the Fraenkel Galllery in SF, which is as upscale as West Coast galleries get, recently showed work by Katy Grannan.  Her older prints were Type C & the newer ones archival pigment prints - with no apologies for the latter.  

Henry Wilhelm established some time ago that pigment prints on good paper now outlast Type C, so any gallery that has sold Type C should not be shy of inkjet.

A quote from the NY Times article of June 5 on print permanence:

"Mr. Reilly and Mr. Wilhelm agree that a big leap for inkjet printing came with the development of inks whose coloring agents are pigments, which are suspended particles, rather than chemical dyes. Mr. Wilhelm says his tests have shown that pigment inkjet printers from several makers now offer better longevity than conventional color prints."
« Last Edit: June 06, 2007, 06:42:53 PM by thompsonkirk » Logged
dkeyes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2007, 04:13:20 PM »
ReplyReply

The stigma around the inferiority of digital prints is definitely waning but not completely gone. There may still be some hesitation by traditional galleries (ones that exhibit mostly 20th century artists). My experience has been that most of the contemporary galleries that sell photographs have been selling digital prints for at least the last 5 years. My guess is these galleries ( like the few that represent my work) have about 1/3 of their inventory in digital prints (pigment or digital c-prints). Museums are collecting digital prints so private collectors are feeling it must be ok for them to do so as well.
If your an artist and want to know what type of prints to create the best thing to do is look at the galleries that show work similar to what you are doing. See what types of prints the images are on in that gallery and talk with the people there about the issue.
- Doug
Logged

pixelpro
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2007, 06:19:11 PM »
ReplyReply

In the UK there are several artists who exhibit digital prints in galleries - John Goto is just one. His work can be seen on his website if you Google. He has done several large bodies of work including New World Circus which is shot on digital cameras and printed digitally.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad