brycepen
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 477
๐๐ป 252
May 2017
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by brycepen on Jul 26, 2017 8:39:41 GMT 1, It wasn't my intention to sound defensive - though of course that doesn't mean I didn't. My intention was to examine the claim that there can be no real comparison between the two lithography processes in question. Listening to Goldston describing the painstaking process of working with the handfed press, managing the colour sequences, etc, to accomplish sometimes just four prints a day made it clear (to me, at least) that producing art editions on the offset press was a properly 'artisanal' process. As far as this relates to the applicable duty rates, I imagine that the type of process Goldston was talking about is as far as it could be from what the framers of the duty regulations had in mind. By the letter of the regulations, as others have said, neither the Telamon prints nor, presumably, the majority of Johns' later lithographs qualify for the rebate. But I would argue that they do qualify according to their spirit, which is not to penalise importers of original works of art. Photomechanical processes are presumably cited specifically to avoid the low rate being claimed on cheap mass-produced reproduction prints. I don't imagine the intent was to exclude works such as these - it seems more likely that the framers of the regulations didn't fully consider the existence of or implications for works such as this, though obviously this is total speculation. The regulations are clumsy, and fail to address a plethora of issues around creative works. For example, what would be the status of hand-pulled screen prints where the screens are produced by a technician using photo-sensitive emulsion and light box? That scenario is commonplace, and is exactly analogous to what we're discussing here, but I imagine few would argue that screen prints shouldn't qualify for the discount. Basically, the regulations fail to take account of unanticipated creative uses of technology in order to accomplish artistic ends. So it seems to me we're trying to clarify whether people should comply with their letter or their apparent intent.
I respectfully disagree. I havent looked into the law at all, but you are conveniently ignoring the purpose of the customs regulations. the regulatory framework behind discounted tariffs for original works of fine art has not changed with technology. Technology has nothing to do with it. Original pieces of fine art are assumed to be valuable and rare . Lower tariffs are meant to increase/reduce the restraint on international transactions when it is consistent with public policy. Even if it is a nice print, "artisanal quality" doesnt define fine art. if it is mass produced and sold in large quantities, it's not fine art. The only debate is what constitutes "large quantities".
It wasn't my intention to sound defensive - though of course that doesn't mean I didn't. My intention was to examine the claim that there can be no real comparison between the two lithography processes in question. Listening to Goldston describing the painstaking process of working with the handfed press, managing the colour sequences, etc, to accomplish sometimes just four prints a day made it clear (to me, at least) that producing art editions on the offset press was a properly 'artisanal' process. As far as this relates to the applicable duty rates, I imagine that the type of process Goldston was talking about is as far as it could be from what the framers of the duty regulations had in mind. By the letter of the regulations, as others have said, neither the Telamon prints nor, presumably, the majority of Johns' later lithographs qualify for the rebate. But I would argue that they do qualify according to their spirit, which is not to penalise importers of original works of art. Photomechanical processes are presumably cited specifically to avoid the low rate being claimed on cheap mass-produced reproduction prints. I don't imagine the intent was to exclude works such as these - it seems more likely that the framers of the regulations didn't fully consider the existence of or implications for works such as this, though obviously this is total speculation. The regulations are clumsy, and fail to address a plethora of issues around creative works. For example, what would be the status of hand-pulled screen prints where the screens are produced by a technician using photo-sensitive emulsion and light box? That scenario is commonplace, and is exactly analogous to what we're discussing here, but I imagine few would argue that screen prints shouldn't qualify for the discount. Basically, the regulations fail to take account of unanticipated creative uses of technology in order to accomplish artistic ends. So it seems to me we're trying to clarify whether people should comply with their letter or their apparent intent. I respectfully disagree. I havent looked into the law at all, but you are conveniently ignoring the purpose of the customs regulations. the regulatory framework behind discounted tariffs for original works of fine art has not changed with technology. Technology has nothing to do with it. Original pieces of fine art are assumed to be valuable and rare . Lower tariffs are meant to increase/reduce the restraint on international transactions when it is consistent with public policy. Even if it is a nice print, "artisanal quality" doesnt define fine art. if it is mass produced and sold in large quantities, it's not fine art. The only debate is what constitutes "large quantities". |
|
rockbeer
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 364
๐๐ป 445
May 2006
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by rockbeer on Jul 26, 2017 9:43:19 GMT 1, It wasn't my intention to sound defensive - though of course that doesn't mean I didn't. My intention was to examine the claim that there can be no real comparison between the two lithography processes in question. Listening to Goldston describing the painstaking process of working with the handfed press, managing the colour sequences, etc, to accomplish sometimes just four prints a day made it clear (to me, at least) that producing art editions on the offset press was a properly 'artisanal' process. As far as this relates to the applicable duty rates, I imagine that the type of process Goldston was talking about is as far as it could be from what the framers of the duty regulations had in mind. By the letter of the regulations, as others have said, neither the Telamon prints nor, presumably, the majority of Johns' later lithographs qualify for the rebate. But I would argue that they do qualify according to their spirit, which is not to penalise importers of original works of art. Photomechanical processes are presumably cited specifically to avoid the low rate being claimed on cheap mass-produced reproduction prints. I don't imagine the intent was to exclude works such as these - it seems more likely that the framers of the regulations didn't fully consider the existence of or implications for works such as this, though obviously this is total speculation. The regulations are clumsy, and fail to address a plethora of issues around creative works. For example, what would be the status of hand-pulled screen prints where the screens are produced by a technician using photo-sensitive emulsion and light box? That scenario is commonplace, and is exactly analogous to what we're discussing here, but I imagine few would argue that screen prints shouldn't qualify for the discount. Basically, the regulations fail to take account of unanticipated creative uses of technology in order to accomplish artistic ends. So it seems to me we're trying to clarify whether people should comply with their letter or their apparent intent. I respectfully disagree. I havent looked into the law at all, but you are conveniently ignoring the purpose of the customs regulations. the regulatory framework behind discounted tariffs for original works of fine art has not changed with technology. Technology has nothing to do with it. Original pieces of fine art are assumed to be valuable and rare . Lower tariffs are meant to increase/reduce the restraint on international transactions when it is consistent with public policy. Even if it is a nice print, "artisanal quality" doesnt define fine art. if it is mass produced and sold in large quantities, it's not fine art. The only debate is what constitutes "large quantities"
You talk about mass production and high-volume sales, but that seems like speculation on your part - the regulations say nothing explicit about them - on the contrary, from what I've read they appear to simply assume that 'mass-production' works can be isolated by attempting to specify the category of technology used to produce them. The whole point is that this is inadequate to the reality. It takes no account of other possible uses of such technology. Nowhere that I've found do the regulations say anything about quantity or value. In fact, bizarrely, a low-value open edition offset lithograph whose plates were entirely hand-painted by the artist would appear to qualify for the discounted rate, while an edition of one worth millions of pounds would not, if the plates were produced photographically - a complete inversion of the purpose you're proposing.
Some of the Telamon edition Johns prints were produced at the rate of four a day, according to Bill Goldston. While I accept that quantity has to be a relevant aspect of the discussion, by any standards it's hard to argue that four per day constitutes 'large quantities' or 'mass production'.
The point is that NO offset lithograph or screen print whose plates or screen were produced by a photographic method would qualify for the reduced rate - not even an edition of one worth millions of pounds - and that surely can't be the intent. It's the regulations, not me, which make a big deal of technology.
It wasn't my intention to sound defensive - though of course that doesn't mean I didn't. My intention was to examine the claim that there can be no real comparison between the two lithography processes in question. Listening to Goldston describing the painstaking process of working with the handfed press, managing the colour sequences, etc, to accomplish sometimes just four prints a day made it clear (to me, at least) that producing art editions on the offset press was a properly 'artisanal' process. As far as this relates to the applicable duty rates, I imagine that the type of process Goldston was talking about is as far as it could be from what the framers of the duty regulations had in mind. By the letter of the regulations, as others have said, neither the Telamon prints nor, presumably, the majority of Johns' later lithographs qualify for the rebate. But I would argue that they do qualify according to their spirit, which is not to penalise importers of original works of art. Photomechanical processes are presumably cited specifically to avoid the low rate being claimed on cheap mass-produced reproduction prints. I don't imagine the intent was to exclude works such as these - it seems more likely that the framers of the regulations didn't fully consider the existence of or implications for works such as this, though obviously this is total speculation. The regulations are clumsy, and fail to address a plethora of issues around creative works. For example, what would be the status of hand-pulled screen prints where the screens are produced by a technician using photo-sensitive emulsion and light box? That scenario is commonplace, and is exactly analogous to what we're discussing here, but I imagine few would argue that screen prints shouldn't qualify for the discount. Basically, the regulations fail to take account of unanticipated creative uses of technology in order to accomplish artistic ends. So it seems to me we're trying to clarify whether people should comply with their letter or their apparent intent. I respectfully disagree. I havent looked into the law at all, but you are conveniently ignoring the purpose of the customs regulations. the regulatory framework behind discounted tariffs for original works of fine art has not changed with technology. Technology has nothing to do with it. Original pieces of fine art are assumed to be valuable and rare . Lower tariffs are meant to increase/reduce the restraint on international transactions when it is consistent with public policy. Even if it is a nice print, "artisanal quality" doesnt define fine art. if it is mass produced and sold in large quantities, it's not fine art. The only debate is what constitutes "large quantities" Hmmm, well, it's difficult to ignore the significance of technology when the regulations themselves specifically identify works produced using certain technologies - in this case, 'photomechanical processes' - as not qualifying for the discounted rate. As others have pointed out, the later offset lithographs of Jasper Johns and many other artists (Dine, Rauschenberg...) are both valuable and rare, to use your terminology, yet would not qualify for the lower rate under the regulations as currently framed. You talk about mass production and high-volume sales, but that seems like speculation on your part - the regulations say nothing explicit about them - on the contrary, from what I've read they appear to simply assume that 'mass-production' works can be isolated by attempting to specify the category of technology used to produce them. The whole point is that this is inadequate to the reality. It takes no account of other possible uses of such technology. Nowhere that I've found do the regulations say anything about quantity or value. In fact, bizarrely, a low-value open edition offset lithograph whose plates were entirely hand-painted by the artist would appear to qualify for the discounted rate, while an edition of one worth millions of pounds would not, if the plates were produced photographically - a complete inversion of the purpose you're proposing. Some of the Telamon edition Johns prints were produced at the rate of four a day, according to Bill Goldston. While I accept that quantity has to be a relevant aspect of the discussion, by any standards it's hard to argue that four per day constitutes 'large quantities' or 'mass production'. The point is that NO offset lithograph or screen print whose plates or screen were produced by a photographic method would qualify for the reduced rate - not even an edition of one worth millions of pounds - and that surely can't be the intent. It's the regulations, not me, which make a big deal of technology. |
|
spirit
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,956
๐๐ป 516
August 2007
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by spirit on Jul 26, 2017 10:03:38 GMT 1, I respectfully disagree. I havent looked into the law at all, but you are conveniently ignoring the purpose of the customs regulations. the regulatory framework behind discounted tariffs for original works of fine art has not changed with technology. Technology has nothing to do with it. Original pieces of fine art are assumed to be valuable and rare . Lower tariffs are meant to increase/reduce the restraint on international transactions when it is consistent with public policy. Even if it is a nice print, "artisanal quality" doesnt define fine art. if it is mass produced and sold in large quantities, it's not fine art. The only debate is what constitutes "large quantities" Hmmm, well, it's difficult to ignore the significance of technology when the regulations themselves specifically identify works produced using certain technologies - in this case, 'photomechanical processes' - as not qualifying for the discounted rate. As others have pointed out, the later offset lithographs of Jasper Johns and many other artists (Dine, Rauschenberg...) are both valuable and rare, to use your terminology, yet would not qualify for the lower rate under the regulations as currently framed. You talk about mass production and high-volume sales, but that seems like speculation on your part - the regulations say nothing explicit about them - on the contrary, from what I've read they appear to simply assume that 'mass-production' works can be isolated by attempting to specify the category of technology used to produce them. The whole point is that this is inadequate to the reality. It takes no account of other possible uses of such technology. Nowhere that I've found do the regulations say anything about quantity or value. In fact, bizarrely, a low-value open edition offset lithograph whose plates were entirely hand-painted by the artist would appear to qualify for the discounted rate, while an edition of one worth millions of pounds would not, if the plates were produced photographically - a complete inversion of the purpose you're proposing. Some of the Telamon edition Johns prints were produced at the rate of four a day, according to Bill Goldston. While I accept that quantity has to be a relevant aspect of the discussion, by any standards it's hard to argue that four per day constitutes 'large quantities' or 'mass production'. The point is that NO offset lithograph or screen print whose plates or screen were produced by a photographic method would qualify for the reduced rate - not even an edition of one worth millions of pounds - and that surely can't be the intent. It's the regulations, not me, which make a big deal of technology.
There are a lot of arguments on this forum.
Rarely are they as intelligent and rational as this one.
A joy to read.
I respectfully disagree. I havent looked into the law at all, but you are conveniently ignoring the purpose of the customs regulations. the regulatory framework behind discounted tariffs for original works of fine art has not changed with technology. Technology has nothing to do with it. Original pieces of fine art are assumed to be valuable and rare . Lower tariffs are meant to increase/reduce the restraint on international transactions when it is consistent with public policy. Even if it is a nice print, "artisanal quality" doesnt define fine art. if it is mass produced and sold in large quantities, it's not fine art. The only debate is what constitutes "large quantities" Hmmm, well, it's difficult to ignore the significance of technology when the regulations themselves specifically identify works produced using certain technologies - in this case, 'photomechanical processes' - as not qualifying for the discounted rate. As others have pointed out, the later offset lithographs of Jasper Johns and many other artists (Dine, Rauschenberg...) are both valuable and rare, to use your terminology, yet would not qualify for the lower rate under the regulations as currently framed. You talk about mass production and high-volume sales, but that seems like speculation on your part - the regulations say nothing explicit about them - on the contrary, from what I've read they appear to simply assume that 'mass-production' works can be isolated by attempting to specify the category of technology used to produce them. The whole point is that this is inadequate to the reality. It takes no account of other possible uses of such technology. Nowhere that I've found do the regulations say anything about quantity or value. In fact, bizarrely, a low-value open edition offset lithograph whose plates were entirely hand-painted by the artist would appear to qualify for the discounted rate, while an edition of one worth millions of pounds would not, if the plates were produced photographically - a complete inversion of the purpose you're proposing. Some of the Telamon edition Johns prints were produced at the rate of four a day, according to Bill Goldston. While I accept that quantity has to be a relevant aspect of the discussion, by any standards it's hard to argue that four per day constitutes 'large quantities' or 'mass production'. The point is that NO offset lithograph or screen print whose plates or screen were produced by a photographic method would qualify for the reduced rate - not even an edition of one worth millions of pounds - and that surely can't be the intent. It's the regulations, not me, which make a big deal of technology. There are a lot of arguments on this forum. Rarely are they as intelligent and rational as this one. A joy to read. |
|
|
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by Happy Shopper on Jul 26, 2017 10:13:39 GMT 1, My 2 cents on the process...
I think Rockbeer is correct that the spirit of the regulation "Photographic process" is to exclude mass produced items, like posters, not Limited Editions made that way... but that's obviously guesswork.
But also, there are 2 ways to produce plates for Offset printing... drawing directly on plates, or using a photographic process to transfer an image onto the plate. And that's the real difference between the types of Johns prints we're comparing.
My 2 cents on the process...
I think Rockbeer is correct that the spirit of the regulation "Photographic process" is to exclude mass produced items, like posters, not Limited Editions made that way... but that's obviously guesswork.
But also, there are 2 ways to produce plates for Offset printing... drawing directly on plates, or using a photographic process to transfer an image onto the plate. And that's the real difference between the types of Johns prints we're comparing.
|
|
brycepen
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 477
๐๐ป 252
May 2017
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by brycepen on Jul 26, 2017 10:18:39 GMT 1, I just want to add my assessment of "mass quantities" as being dispositive includes the caveat that the piece must be VALUABLE. The tariff is a percentage of the price of 1 item so obviously quantities are important. When these regulations were made, most individuals purchasing a work of fine art from another country were typically buying something already quite expensive, and shipping internationallly was expensive. Attaching a 20% premium to an expensive item that didnt usually change hands very often just didnt make sense.
If you are producing and selling nice prints in mass quantities, you are a glorified manufacturer. You might also be an artist, but you dont get to use the artist card every time you want avoid paying fees.
I just want to add my assessment of "mass quantities" as being dispositive includes the caveat that the piece must be VALUABLE. The tariff is a percentage of the price of 1 item so obviously quantities are important. When these regulations were made, most individuals purchasing a work of fine art from another country were typically buying something already quite expensive, and shipping internationallly was expensive. Attaching a 20% premium to an expensive item that didnt usually change hands very often just didnt make sense.
If you are producing and selling nice prints in mass quantities, you are a glorified manufacturer. You might also be an artist, but you dont get to use the artist card every time you want avoid paying fees.
|
|
rockbeer
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 364
๐๐ป 445
May 2006
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by rockbeer on Jul 26, 2017 10:44:21 GMT 1, I just want to add my assessment of "mass quantities" as being dispositive includes the caveat that the piece must be VALUABLE. The tariff is a percentage of the price of 1 item so obviously quantities are important. When these regulations were made, most individuals purchasing a work of fine art from another country were typically buying something already quite expensive, and shipping internationallly was expensive. Attaching a 20% premium to an expensive item that didnt usually change hands very often just didnt make sense. If you are producing and selling nice prints in mass quantities, you are a glorified manufacturer. You might also be an artist, but you dont get to use the artist card every time you want avoid paying fees.
I think we entirely agree that the regs don't adequately reflect the current reality.
Value is an interesting concept, though again it has to be said that this isn't something the regulations concern themselves with at all. As far as I can tell, a $10 print and a $1,000,000 print are treated exactly the same under the regulations as long as they are produced in the same way. Nevertheless... what would you consider 'valuable', and what do you base it on?
I should also point out that it isn't the artist that pays the fees, whether glorified manufacturer or not - it's the purchaser.
I just want to add my assessment of "mass quantities" as being dispositive includes the caveat that the piece must be VALUABLE. The tariff is a percentage of the price of 1 item so obviously quantities are important. When these regulations were made, most individuals purchasing a work of fine art from another country were typically buying something already quite expensive, and shipping internationallly was expensive. Attaching a 20% premium to an expensive item that didnt usually change hands very often just didnt make sense. If you are producing and selling nice prints in mass quantities, you are a glorified manufacturer. You might also be an artist, but you dont get to use the artist card every time you want avoid paying fees. This may be true, but I have to say again that, with respect, it's really just speculation on your part. The regulations don't say anything explicit about the issues you're raising. Not that you're alone - I think we're all speculating really, trying to infer the intent of the regulations from their rather sketchy content. I think we entirely agree that the regs don't adequately reflect the current reality. Value is an interesting concept, though again it has to be said that this isn't something the regulations concern themselves with at all. As far as I can tell, a $10 print and a $1,000,000 print are treated exactly the same under the regulations as long as they are produced in the same way. Nevertheless... what would you consider 'valuable', and what do you base it on? I should also point out that it isn't the artist that pays the fees, whether glorified manufacturer or not - it's the purchaser. |
|
|
|
rockbeer
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 364
๐๐ป 445
May 2006
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by rockbeer on Jul 26, 2017 10:49:16 GMT 1, My 2 cents on the process... I think Rockbeer is correct that the spirit of the regulation "Photographic process" is to exclude mass produced items, like posters, not Limited Editions made that way... but that's obviously guesswork. But also, there are 2 ways to produce plates for Offset printing... drawing directly on plates, or using a photographic process to transfer an image onto the plate. And that's the real difference between the types of Johns prints we're comparing.
The trouble with all this discussion is that I still have no idea how much duty to pay!
My 2 cents on the process... I think Rockbeer is correct that the spirit of the regulation "Photographic process" is to exclude mass produced items, like posters, not Limited Editions made that way... but that's obviously guesswork. But also, there are 2 ways to produce plates for Offset printing... drawing directly on plates, or using a photographic process to transfer an image onto the plate. And that's the real difference between the types of Johns prints we're comparing. Indeed, just as there are many ways to produce screens. Photo-stencils, hand-painting, hand-cut stencils... It seems curious, arbitrary and inadequate to single out photographic methods as not 'art', though I think I can see the (flawed) reasoning behind it. The trouble with all this discussion is that I still have no idea how much duty to pay! |
|
brycepen
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 477
๐๐ป 252
May 2017
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by brycepen on Jul 26, 2017 10:50:34 GMT 1, I just want to add my assessment of "mass quantities" as being dispositive includes the caveat that the piece must be VALUABLE. The tariff is a percentage of the price of 1 item so obviously quantities are important. When these regulations were made, most individuals purchasing a work of fine art from another country were typically buying something already quite expensive, and shipping internationallly was expensive. Attaching a 20% premium to an expensive item that didnt usually change hands very often just didnt make sense. If you are producing and selling nice prints in mass quantities, you are a glorified manufacturer. You might also be an artist, but you dont get to use the artist card every time you want avoid paying fees. This may be true, but I have to say again that, with respect, it's really just speculation on your part. The regulations don't say anything explicit about the issues you're raising. Not that you're alone - I think we're all speculating really, trying to infer the intent of the regulations from their rather sketchy content. I think we entirely agree that the regs don't adequately reflect the current reality. Value is an interesting concept, though again it has to be said that this isn't something the regulations concern themselves with at all. As far as I can tell, a $10 print and a $1,000,000 print are treated exactly the same under the regulations as long as they are produced in the same way. Nevertheless... what would you consider 'valuable', and what do you base it on? I should also point out that it isn't the artist that pays the fees, whether glorified manufacturer or not - it's the purchaser.
A $10 piece isnt treated the same as a $10000 piece. If the piece is $10, 20% = $2 tariff. If it's $10,000, 20% = $2,000. Big difference. And if an artist is selling the piece, he'd probably have to bump the price down to account for the effect of tariffs on the price paid by the consumer. He's not paying directly, but that's going to affect his profit margin.
I just want to add my assessment of "mass quantities" as being dispositive includes the caveat that the piece must be VALUABLE. The tariff is a percentage of the price of 1 item so obviously quantities are important. When these regulations were made, most individuals purchasing a work of fine art from another country were typically buying something already quite expensive, and shipping internationallly was expensive. Attaching a 20% premium to an expensive item that didnt usually change hands very often just didnt make sense. If you are producing and selling nice prints in mass quantities, you are a glorified manufacturer. You might also be an artist, but you dont get to use the artist card every time you want avoid paying fees. This may be true, but I have to say again that, with respect, it's really just speculation on your part. The regulations don't say anything explicit about the issues you're raising. Not that you're alone - I think we're all speculating really, trying to infer the intent of the regulations from their rather sketchy content. I think we entirely agree that the regs don't adequately reflect the current reality. Value is an interesting concept, though again it has to be said that this isn't something the regulations concern themselves with at all. As far as I can tell, a $10 print and a $1,000,000 print are treated exactly the same under the regulations as long as they are produced in the same way. Nevertheless... what would you consider 'valuable', and what do you base it on? I should also point out that it isn't the artist that pays the fees, whether glorified manufacturer or not - it's the purchaser. A $10 piece isnt treated the same as a $10000 piece. If the piece is $10, 20% = $2 tariff. If it's $10,000, 20% = $2,000. Big difference. And if an artist is selling the piece, he'd probably have to bump the price down to account for the effect of tariffs on the price paid by the consumer. He's not paying directly, but that's going to affect his profit margin. |
|
|
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by Happy Shopper on Jul 26, 2017 10:57:30 GMT 1, My 2 cents on the process... I think Rockbeer is correct that the spirit of the regulation "Photographic process" is to exclude mass produced items, like posters, not Limited Editions made that way... but that's obviously guesswork. But also, there are 2 ways to produce plates for Offset printing... drawing directly on plates, or using a photographic process to transfer an image onto the plate. And that's the real difference between the types of Johns prints we're comparing. Indeed, just as there are many ways to produce screens. Photo-stencils, hand-painting, hand-cut stencils... It seems curious, arbitrary and inadequate to single out photographic methods as not 'art', though I think I can see the (flawed) reasoning behind it. The trouble with all this discussion is that I still have no idea how much duty to pay!
Ultimately we just make a claim and say why we believe it should be 5%... HMRC will decide whether that's correct or not.
My 2 cents on the process... I think Rockbeer is correct that the spirit of the regulation "Photographic process" is to exclude mass produced items, like posters, not Limited Editions made that way... but that's obviously guesswork. But also, there are 2 ways to produce plates for Offset printing... drawing directly on plates, or using a photographic process to transfer an image onto the plate. And that's the real difference between the types of Johns prints we're comparing. Indeed, just as there are many ways to produce screens. Photo-stencils, hand-painting, hand-cut stencils... It seems curious, arbitrary and inadequate to single out photographic methods as not 'art', though I think I can see the (flawed) reasoning behind it. The trouble with all this discussion is that I still have no idea how much duty to pay! Ultimately we just make a claim and say why we believe it should be 5%... HMRC will decide whether that's correct or not. |
|
rockbeer
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 364
๐๐ป 445
May 2006
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by rockbeer on Jul 26, 2017 11:02:23 GMT 1, This may be true, but I have to say again that, with respect, it's really just speculation on your part. The regulations don't say anything explicit about the issues you're raising. Not that you're alone - I think we're all speculating really, trying to infer the intent of the regulations from their rather sketchy content. I think we entirely agree that the regs don't adequately reflect the current reality. Value is an interesting concept, though again it has to be said that this isn't something the regulations concern themselves with at all. As far as I can tell, a $10 print and a $1,000,000 print are treated exactly the same under the regulations as long as they are produced in the same way. Nevertheless... what would you consider 'valuable', and what do you base it on? I should also point out that it isn't the artist that pays the fees, whether glorified manufacturer or not - it's the purchaser. A $10 piece isnt treated the same as a $10000 piece. If the piece is $10, 20% = $2 tariff. If it's $10,000, 20% = $2,000. Big difference. And if an artist is selling the piece, he'd probably have to bump the price down to account for the effect of tariffs on the price paid by the consumer. He's not paying directly, but that's going to affect his profit margin.
As for your other point: except under very particular circumstances, I'd imagine the chances are that the value of a work will be determined by the artist's home market or, if the artist is of great renown, the international art market rather than the duty paid by foreign customers. Of course the Internet has transformed the market in this respect, but that's just another application of technology the regulations don't adequately reflect.
This may be true, but I have to say again that, with respect, it's really just speculation on your part. The regulations don't say anything explicit about the issues you're raising. Not that you're alone - I think we're all speculating really, trying to infer the intent of the regulations from their rather sketchy content. I think we entirely agree that the regs don't adequately reflect the current reality. Value is an interesting concept, though again it has to be said that this isn't something the regulations concern themselves with at all. As far as I can tell, a $10 print and a $1,000,000 print are treated exactly the same under the regulations as long as they are produced in the same way. Nevertheless... what would you consider 'valuable', and what do you base it on? I should also point out that it isn't the artist that pays the fees, whether glorified manufacturer or not - it's the purchaser. A $10 piece isnt treated the same as a $10000 piece. If the piece is $10, 20% = $2 tariff. If it's $10,000, 20% = $2,000. Big difference. And if an artist is selling the piece, he'd probably have to bump the price down to account for the effect of tariffs on the price paid by the consumer. He's not paying directly, but that's going to affect his profit margin. They are both charged duty at 20% - that is 'being treated the same'. The regs make no distinction based on value, and they don't explicitly exempt or discount high value work. The opposite, in fact. Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you might be confusing yourself. If your argument that the regs are designed to protect high value works held any water, you'd surely expect to see a lower rate applied to higher value works. As for your other point: except under very particular circumstances, I'd imagine the chances are that the value of a work will be determined by the artist's home market or, if the artist is of great renown, the international art market rather than the duty paid by foreign customers. Of course the Internet has transformed the market in this respect, but that's just another application of technology the regulations don't adequately reflect. |
|
sr20det510
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 59
๐๐ป 26
June 2017
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by sr20det510 on Jul 29, 2017 21:39:08 GMT 1, My prints finally arrived 
I ordered on June 20th, so it took a few weeks for the prints to ship.
If you ordered around that time frame, I would imagine your order is on the way.
I accidently ordered 4 prints instead of the two I finally decided on, so I will be shipping two back to ULAE. (The other two were shipped accidently, after we had emailed back and forth, and ULAE informed me they could remove items from order, and credit my account.)
One is a False Start I which is sold out, and the other is Hatteras.
If anyone is interested, I can ship those two to you at cost, plus actual shipping, or I'll just send them back.
Finally, as for my Flag II and 0-9 they look amazing. I think I'm going to float them with a white background and a black frame. I would do maple on the Flag II, but they will hang near each other so I think I should do black, or maybe I'll do both with a maple frame. I'll figure out once I get to the frame shop. Either way should work, and I know they'll look good cause these things are outstanding
My prints finally arrived I ordered on June 20th, so it took a few weeks for the prints to ship. If you ordered around that time frame, I would imagine your order is on the way. I accidently ordered 4 prints instead of the two I finally decided on, so I will be shipping two back to ULAE. (The other two were shipped accidently, after we had emailed back and forth, and ULAE informed me they could remove items from order, and credit my account.) One is a False Start I which is sold out, and the other is Hatteras. If anyone is interested, I can ship those two to you at cost, plus actual shipping, or I'll just send them back. Finally, as for my Flag II and 0-9 they look amazing. I think I'm going to float them with a white background and a black frame. I would do maple on the Flag II, but they will hang near each other so I think I should do black, or maybe I'll do both with a maple frame. I'll figure out once I get to the frame shop. Either way should work, and I know they'll look good cause these things are outstanding |
|
Sam Harris
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 71
๐๐ป 21
June 2016
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by Sam Harris on Jul 29, 2017 22:01:15 GMT 1, My prints finally arrived I ordered on June 20th, so it took a few weeks for the prints to ship. If you ordered around that time frame, I would imagine your order is on the way. I accidently ordered 4 prints instead of the two I finally decided on, so I will be shipping two back to ULAE. (The other two were shipped accidently, after we had emailed back and forth, and ULAE informed me they could remove items from order, and credit my account.) One is a False Start I which is sold out, and the other is Hatteras. If anyone is interested, I can ship those two to you at cost, plus actual shipping, or I'll just send them back. Finally, as for my Flag II and 0-9 they look amazing. I think I'm going to float them with a white background and a black frame. I would do maple on the Flag II, but they will hang near each other so I think I should do black, or maybe I'll do both with a maple frame. I'll figure out once I get to the frame shop. Either way should work, and I know they'll look good cause these things are outstanding
Interested in false start
My prints finally arrived I ordered on June 20th, so it took a few weeks for the prints to ship. If you ordered around that time frame, I would imagine your order is on the way. I accidently ordered 4 prints instead of the two I finally decided on, so I will be shipping two back to ULAE. (The other two were shipped accidently, after we had emailed back and forth, and ULAE informed me they could remove items from order, and credit my account.) One is a False Start I which is sold out, and the other is Hatteras. If anyone is interested, I can ship those two to you at cost, plus actual shipping, or I'll just send them back. Finally, as for my Flag II and 0-9 they look amazing. I think I'm going to float them with a white background and a black frame. I would do maple on the Flag II, but they will hang near each other so I think I should do black, or maybe I'll do both with a maple frame. I'll figure out once I get to the frame shop. Either way should work, and I know they'll look good cause these things are outstanding Interested in false start |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 19:03:20 GMT 1, For anyone in the U.K., this show at the RA looks like it will be good
www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibition/jasper-johns?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=&utm_content=Jasper%20Johns%20image%20link&utm_campaign=RANews%20RASummer%20d_MARKETING%2020170801&emailcode=
Jasper Johns: โSomething Resembling Truthโ will be the first comprehensive survey of the artistโs work to be held in the UK in 40 years. Comprising over 150 paintings, sculptures, drawings and prints, it will reveal the continuities and changes that have occurred over the past six decades and the curiosity and experimentation that Johns continues to apply to his current practice. During the 1960s Johns added an array of household and studio objects and imprints and casts of the human figure. The works of the 1970s are dominated by an abstract pattern, referred to as โcrosshatchings.โ During the 1980s and 1990s Johns introduced a variety of images that engaged with the ambiguities of perception and ongoing themes involving memory, sexuality, and the contemplation of mortality. From this time, Johns increasingly incorporated tracings and details of works by artists including Matthias Grรผnewald, Pablo Picasso and Edvard Munch. By the early 2000s Johns had embarked on the pared-down and more conceptual Catenary series which, along with other recent works such as 5 Postcards, 2013 and Regrets, 2013, shows the rich productivity and vitality of this late phase of his career.
The exhibition brings together artworks that rarely travel from international private and public collections and new works by the artist.
For anyone in the U.K., this show at the RA looks like it will be good www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibition/jasper-johns?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=&utm_content=Jasper%20Johns%20image%20link&utm_campaign=RANews%20RASummer%20d_MARKETING%2020170801&emailcode=Jasper Johns: โSomething Resembling Truthโ will be the first comprehensive survey of the artistโs work to be held in the UK in 40 years. Comprising over 150 paintings, sculptures, drawings and prints, it will reveal the continuities and changes that have occurred over the past six decades and the curiosity and experimentation that Johns continues to apply to his current practice. During the 1960s Johns added an array of household and studio objects and imprints and casts of the human figure. The works of the 1970s are dominated by an abstract pattern, referred to as โcrosshatchings.โ During the 1980s and 1990s Johns introduced a variety of images that engaged with the ambiguities of perception and ongoing themes involving memory, sexuality, and the contemplation of mortality. From this time, Johns increasingly incorporated tracings and details of works by artists including Matthias Grรผnewald, Pablo Picasso and Edvard Munch. By the early 2000s Johns had embarked on the pared-down and more conceptual Catenary series which, along with other recent works such as 5 Postcards, 2013 and Regrets, 2013, shows the rich productivity and vitality of this late phase of his career. The exhibition brings together artworks that rarely travel from international private and public collections and new works by the artist. |
|
rockbeer
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 364
๐๐ป 445
May 2006
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by rockbeer on Aug 2, 2017 13:41:19 GMT 1, Question for those in the UK who ordered prints from ULAE:
I received notification that my prints had shipped on 26th July, with a link to the USPS tracking page. I clicked on the link and it told me:
"Your item arrived at our USPS facility in BETHPAGE NY DISTRIBUTION CENTER on July 26, 2017 at 12:54 am. The item is currently in transit to the destination. "
It hasn't updated since. That's an entire week. I signed up for text updates but have received nothing, and nothing through the door.
So my question is: does this seem normal? How long did your prints take to get from NY to the UK? And when should I start to worry that they've vanished into some Bethpage-based black hole?
Thanks.
Question for those in the UK who ordered prints from ULAE:
I received notification that my prints had shipped on 26th July, with a link to the USPS tracking page. I clicked on the link and it told me:
"Your item arrived at our USPS facility in BETHPAGE NY DISTRIBUTION CENTER on July 26, 2017 at 12:54 am. The item is currently in transit to the destination. "
It hasn't updated since. That's an entire week. I signed up for text updates but have received nothing, and nothing through the door.
So my question is: does this seem normal? How long did your prints take to get from NY to the UK? And when should I start to worry that they've vanished into some Bethpage-based black hole?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
rosac
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,894
๐๐ป 1,538
July 2015
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by rosac on Aug 2, 2017 13:44:29 GMT 1, Question for those in the UK who ordered prints from ULAE: I received notification that my prints had shipped on 26th July, with a link to the USPS tracking page. I clicked on the link and it told me: "Your item arrived at our USPS facility in BETHPAGE NY DISTRIBUTION CENTER on July 26, 2017 at 12:54 am. The item is currently in transit to the destination. " It hasn't updated since. That's an entire week. I signed up for text updates but have received nothing, and nothing through the door. So my question is: does this seem normal? How long did your prints take to get from NY to the UK? And when should I start to worry that they've vanished into some Bethpage-based black hole? Thanks.
Question for those in the UK who ordered prints from ULAE: I received notification that my prints had shipped on 26th July, with a link to the USPS tracking page. I clicked on the link and it told me: "Your item arrived at our USPS facility in BETHPAGE NY DISTRIBUTION CENTER on July 26, 2017 at 12:54 am. The item is currently in transit to the destination. " It hasn't updated since. That's an entire week. I signed up for text updates but have received nothing, and nothing through the door. So my question is: does this seem normal? How long did your prints take to get from NY to the UK? And when should I start to worry that they've vanished into some Bethpage-based black hole? Thanks. id say expect a letter any day now asking for a customs fee. once you've paid that they can be delivered in 2 days. seems normal i think. they all seem to be taking a while! |
|
|
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by Happy Shopper on Aug 2, 2017 13:51:11 GMT 1, I received notification that my prints had shipped on 26th July, with a link to the USPS tracking page. I clicked on the link and it told me: "Your item arrived at our USPS facility in BETHPAGE NY DISTRIBUTION CENTER on July 26, 2017 at 12:54 am. The item is currently in transit to the destination. "
Move to the Parcel Force tracking page... USPS wont have info once it's left the US.
But as said above, you'll probably get a customs charge in a day or 2.
Mine was about ยฃ30 for 1 print.
I received notification that my prints had shipped on 26th July, with a link to the USPS tracking page. I clicked on the link and it told me: "Your item arrived at our USPS facility in BETHPAGE NY DISTRIBUTION CENTER on July 26, 2017 at 12:54 am. The item is currently in transit to the destination. " Move to the Parcel Force tracking page... USPS wont have info once it's left the US. But as said above, you'll probably get a customs charge in a day or 2. Mine was about ยฃ30 for 1 print. |
|
rockbeer
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 364
๐๐ป 445
May 2006
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by rockbeer on Aug 2, 2017 16:22:29 GMT 1, I received notification that my prints had shipped on 26th July, with a link to the USPS tracking page. I clicked on the link and it told me: "Your item arrived at our USPS facility in BETHPAGE NY DISTRIBUTION CENTER on July 26, 2017 at 12:54 am. The item is currently in transit to the destination. " Move to the Parcel Force tracking page... USPS wont have info once it's left the US. But as said above, you'll probably get a customs charge in a day or 2. Mine was about ยฃ30 for 1 print.
"The reference number you have entered may be incorrect. Please check and try again. Find out more about tracking reference numbers.
Information on your International Tracked item is not yet available."
I hate waiting...
I received notification that my prints had shipped on 26th July, with a link to the USPS tracking page. I clicked on the link and it told me: "Your item arrived at our USPS facility in BETHPAGE NY DISTRIBUTION CENTER on July 26, 2017 at 12:54 am. The item is currently in transit to the destination. " Move to the Parcel Force tracking page... USPS wont have info once it's left the US. But as said above, you'll probably get a customs charge in a day or 2. Mine was about ยฃ30 for 1 print. Thanks for the suggestion - "The reference number you have entered may be incorrect. Please check and try again. Find out more about tracking reference numbers. Information on your International Tracked item is not yet available." I hate waiting... |
|
tran16
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 567
๐๐ป 504
December 2016
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by tran16 on Aug 4, 2017 9:08:59 GMT 1, Got my UK customs refund. Thanks to other members who advised. Dead easy really, well worth it
Got my UK customs refund. Thanks to other members who advised. Dead easy really, well worth it
|
|
Poly Mindset
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,175
๐๐ป 1,578
March 2014
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by Poly Mindset on Aug 4, 2017 16:24:12 GMT 1, Got my UK customs refund. Thanks to other members who advised. Dead easy really, well worth it
Got my UK customs refund. Thanks to other members who advised. Dead easy really, well worth it Congratulations!! Was there any argument needed? Did you have to present any facts about the way it was printed? I said the proof would be in the pudding and I honestly didn't have faith that members would get a refund but obviously someone in your system has some common sense. You have now open the flood gates. Good for you. |
|
pippyt75
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,010
๐๐ป 1,265
March 2015
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by pippyt75 on Aug 4, 2017 18:28:17 GMT 1, Got my UK customs refund. Thanks to other members who advised. Dead easy really, well worth it
well done! Can I ask where you apply?
Got my UK customs refund. Thanks to other members who advised. Dead easy really, well worth it well done! Can I ask where you apply? |
|
|
|
|
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by 10th Mountain on Aug 4, 2017 20:20:04 GMT 1, if anyone has any different information let me know please. Cheers
if anyone has any different information let me know please. Cheers
|
|
|
|
tran16
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 567
๐๐ป 504
December 2016
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by tran16 on Aug 5, 2017 7:19:30 GMT 1, I used the form in 10thmountain's link
I used the form in 10thmountain's link
|
|
|
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by Rouen Cathedral on Aug 12, 2017 3:01:26 GMT 1, Finally framed this one up:
Finally framed this one up: |
|
Viking Surfer
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,390
๐๐ป 3,508
February 2015
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by Viking Surfer on Aug 12, 2017 6:32:08 GMT 1, Finally framed this one up:
Lovely!
Finally framed this one up: Lovely! |
|
|
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by Rouen Cathedral on Aug 19, 2017 20:49:22 GMT 1, The other!
The other! |
|
whiteside
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 43
๐๐ป 54
November 2016
|
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 22:23:59 GMT 1, Has anyone noticed that these now say they donโt ship to the UK when you try to check out?
Has anyone noticed that these now say they donโt ship to the UK when you try to check out?
|
|
|
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by Someones Brain on Sept 26, 2017 10:21:11 GMT 1, Has anyone noticed that these now say they donโt ship to the UK when you try to check out?
It has been like this for the last month. They had problems with returned, not deliverd or damaged parcels. They will ship international again when they figured out how to avoid these problems. They want to provide for a good customer service and that is why they want to solve these questions first.
Has anyone noticed that these now say they donโt ship to the UK when you try to check out? It has been like this for the last month. They had problems with returned, not deliverd or damaged parcels. They will ship international again when they figured out how to avoid these problems. They want to provide for a good customer service and that is why they want to solve these questions first. |
|
tran16
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 567
๐๐ป 504
December 2016
|
Jasper Johns ๐บ๐ธ Painter โข Pop Art, Abstract Expressionism , by tran16 on Sept 26, 2017 10:44:03 GMT 1, I'm pretty sure they'll be aware of the big Johns exhibition at the RA, they could be missing out on some potential business
I'm pretty sure they'll be aware of the big Johns exhibition at the RA, they could be missing out on some potential business
|
|
