Reproduction Print Sales Impact Artists in a Big Way

The commercialization of the art business by big business is no more evident anywhere than in the marketing of reproduction prints, primarily giclees, by entities billing themselves as fine art publishing houses. Many of these prints are advertised as signed, limited editions and sell for hundreds or even thousands of dollars. The great majority, however, are nothing more than scans or copies of paintings, watercolors, or original works of art in other mediums. The only thing original about them are the signatures which take the artists maybe several seconds to apply at most. Now that's worth hundreds or thousands of dollars, right?

The problem with this end of the art business is fourfold. First of all, the large majority of these prints and giclees are marketed in such ways as to confuse less sophisticated buyers about whether or not they're getting original works of art. Second, some level of collectibility and/or investment potential is often implied by sellers, when in fact, these repro-prints are little more than glorified posters. Third, the markup over production costs is huge with the bulk of the profits going to printing companies (aka fine art publishers) rather than artists. Fourth, every time someone buys one of these reproduction prints or giclees, one less artist somewhere sells one less original work of art. The bottom line? Tens of millions of dollars at the very least least are being siphoned away from artists annually.

Even with this huge amount of money at stake, artists do little to combat the misconceptions and questionable marketing tactics that characterize the commercial reproduction print and giclee industry. Many feel powerless, some have no interest in mobilizing, others ignore the problem out of elitism, still others try to join the printing companies rather than beat them by publishing and marketing their own signed, limited edition reproduction prints or giclees. No matter what excuses or rationalizations artists come up with to explain their inaction, as long as commercial print and giclee publishers continue to do business unchecked, their market share will continue to increase and artists will continue to lose out bigtime financially.

Two more aspects of the reproduction print industry which are perhaps far more devastating over the long haul than the dollars and cents going to print publishing companies rather than artists, are that art gets debased by the way repro prints are sold, and a percentage of collectors stop buying when they realize what they've been getting for their money. You see, not only are reproduction prints and giclees confused with original works of art, but they're also often represented as investments-- like stocks and bonds. So when collectors realize that not only are their originals actually reproductions, but also discover their "investment value" is not what they thought it would be, they stop buying art altogether-- and all art and all artists suffer. Misrepresent "art" in any way to anyone once and they'll be reluctant to ever approach artists or art galleries again.

In the meantime, these large commercial print publishing companies roll on. They flood the marketplace with slick brochures, major public relations campaigns, full page ads, high profile galleries, continually mutating terminologies and concocting ever more confusing explanations of what it is that they sell. All the while, they strengthen their foothold and effectively stymie a significant percentage of the art buying public.

The bottom line is that artists must somehow move towards unity in defining their position on this issue. Galleries dealing in original art must make a concerted effort to educate the general public (and not just their own clienteles) about how to distinguish between original works of art and reproductions or copies of original works of art. Dealers, art consultants, agents, and public relations people must spread the word by informing the general public whenever possible. Lawyers for the arts should lobby for better disclosure laws; criteria for describing reproduction limited edition prints should be standardized, made easy to understand, and be made readily available to everyone-- before they buy their "art," not after.

Artist, illustrator, and printmaker Mel Hunter actually attempted to do something about the commercial reproduction print and giclee industry back in the 1990's and up until he passed away in 2004. He was a tireless crusader for all artists who create original prints. Well aware that he was up against a highly capitalized and highly successful juggernaut, he began publishing a newsletter, PRINTthoughts, that attempted not only to inform and educate people about the differences between original and reproduction prints, but also to establish industry guidelines for labelling, representing and selling both types of art. PRINTthoughts offered statements and discussions by artists and printmakers, articles on various forms of printmaking, articles on original versus reproduction prints, discussions of the "limited edition" concept, sample disclosure forms and certificates of authenticity which could eventually be legislated into law. Anyone interested in these newsletters or their content might try calling Susan Smith-Hunter at 802-877-3719 or visiting the Mel and Susan Smith-Hunter website.

And those of you looking for the best in original limited edition prints from top national and international dealers should visit the International Fine Print Dealers Association website.