Dennis - What you say certainly may be true. But, what to do? The term 'ink jet' has no snob appeal. Tom Baker "Dennis W. Manasco" <dmanasco@...> wrote: At 11:36 pm -0700 11/6/03, Tim Atherton wrote: >Thought people might enjoy a little bit of the still ongoing >exchange on Carbon pigment inkjet prints vs. traditional carbon >prints from the LF list: %< snip >% >>Hmmm, it DOES appear that the Giclee was around earlier than >>'carbon printing'... On a related note about printing nomenclature: Would anyone _really_ want their wife to handle "Giclee" prints made by anyone but themselves? ;>) Seriously: "Giclee" has got to be the most ridiculous and unfortunate term ever foisted on an artistic community. Whoever came up with the term "Giclee" to describe ink jet prints may have had an English-French dictionary, but they didn't have a very good grasp of colloquial French. Any French speaker who walks into an American gallery and sees prints marked "Giclee" probably has to run out of the shop, either because they can't stifle their laughter or, for the more squeamish, because they can't stifle their disgust. As for Americans who know, the almost universal response is to roll up their eyes and wonder why someone so clueless is charging such an outrageous price for an ink jet print instead of explaining why _their_ particular ink jet is worth that much over cost when, once they have the process pegged, they can knock them off by the hour, unattended, on the machine in the back room. Don't get me wrong: I have great respect for artists who spend hours and days fine-tuning their output and producing incredible prints. I have real problems with shops that produce 7 x 9's by the dozen, slap the term "Giclee" on them, display them one-up in the shop bins and then try to scam the clueless tourists into buying them as some kind of "special one-of-a-kind reproduction" at $120+ a pop. Not only is the term "Giclee" hilariously offensive, but it impedes an open discussion between the artistic community and the customer about the quality, uniqueness and desirability of the product. The lack of such a discussion may well come back to haunt artists when mechanical reproduction of fine prints becomes the norm and consumers realize that they have been fooled in the past. -=-Dennis Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. Please follow these basic guidelines: - Include your full name with your message. - Include the address of your website, if you have one. - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames - Complete your Yahoo profile. - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Message
Re: [Digital BW] Carbon "inkjet" (giclee) images found to carbon photographic prints
2003-11-09 by Tom Baker
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.