Can't answer a question?

I dont think this forum is uninformed but I was around for Outis and Ive seen things pic up steam fast for far less. Its the ULAE with a rich history I am sure collectors come in their website all the time, I dont think they lack exposure. But they might lack a different type of collector that this forum brought them I could guess. I think its great to me I would much rather see Hype involving Jasper Johns than some other unworthy street artist who stole his style from someone else. Nothing negative here, just making observations.

These are not prints regardless of what press they were printed on, or what type of paper, they are reproductions of a print which is an actual work of art. Its standard definition and clearly stated on the reproduction. The title of this thread should be changed for fear of confusion.

You can google the difference, here is just one that I found.

Lets start with a definition of the terms "reproduction" and "print". Merriam Webster's little dictionary defines "reproduction" as:
1 : the act or process of reproducing
2 : something reproduced : COPY
synonyms REPRODUCTION, DUPLICATE, COPY, FACSIMILE, REPLICA mean a thing made to closely resemble another. REPRODUCTION implies an exact or close imitation of an existing thing (reproductions from the museum's furniture collection). DUPLICATE implies a double or counterpart exactly corresponding to another thing (a duplicate of a house key). COPY applies especially to one of a number of things reproduced mechanically (printed a thousand copies of the gicleé). FACSIMILE suggests a close reproduction often of graphic matter that may differ in scale (a facsimile of a rare book). REPLICA implies the exact reproduction of a particular item in all details (a replica of the Mayflower) but not always in the same scale (miniature replicas of classic cars).

and, the difinition for "print" is:
(1) : a copy made by printing (2) : a reproduction of an original work of art (as a painting) made by a photomechanical process (3) : an original work of art (as a woodcut, etching, or lithograph) intended for graphic reproduction and produced by or under the supervision of the artist who designed it.


Ok, from just this we can see that a print can be a reproduction, but a reproduction may not necessarily be a print. This is where the terms start to vary. ANYTIME a piece of art is copied by photomechanical means, it is a "reproduction". It doesn't matter if the process has a fancy sounding name, like "giclee" (which literally means "ink droplets"), or if it has a cheap sounding name like "photo copy", because the are basically the same thing. Both are produced by the same means. Only the actual quality of the materials used will be the difference. (Sometimes there isn't much of a difference in those either.) Technically speaking a "reproduction" could be called a "print" because it is printed. I think that #3 best fits what a "print" really is.

"Prints" are, by definition (3), an original work of art (as a woodcut [block print], etching, silkscreen [serigraphy] or lithograph) intended for graphic reproduction and produced by or under the supervision of the artist who designed it. These are images that are produced to be multiples. They are most often done completely by the artist, and are most often done in small runs, or editions. (On all of the "prints" that I produce as serigraphs (silkscreen), the run, or edition, is 45) This is because the image starts to deteriorate after a certain numbers of "prints" are produced. Most "print" editions are less than 200.

Can "reproductions" be done in limited runs? Sure they can, but they don't have to be. "reproduction" runs are commonly well over the 200 number that most all "prints" editions fall under. Why? Because they can. "Reproduction" editions typically are in numbers of 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1200, 1500, ect. The more of the "reproductions" they produce, the more money they can make off of them. Many artists have been led to think that "reproductions" with fancy names (like giclee) should be rather expensive to produce, and thus should be collectibles

Are these not #1) A copy made by printing? I get your point but you can't be the king and list three definitions of what a print is and then say to the kingdom that it is only #3.
Secondly, Facsimile is in black and white on each of these images. A close reproduction that may differ in scale (which most of these do), by definition.
So, if you're saying that a facsimile cannot be a print I cannot agree with your logic. However, I understand and I think everyone here does that these are not an original print. That is clearly obvious by the difference in price. IMO this is an argument in symantics as it is left to the individual to determine if a facsimile can be considered a print. I believe it can.

If you want to use the term Print then you must use Reproduction in front of it. Yes its a print as much as a newspaper is printed offset and a print, a poster is a print in the same breadth. Those fit the definition of a print but they dont fit the definition of a fine art print because there is no ownership. These are obviously prints off a press, but they are not fine art prints. I think many in years past have been duped to buy these reproductions as they were signed and numbered at times by the artists. Yet they were not originals and people were buying them as originals because the semantics of this terminology. Picasso, Dali, etc etc have huge catalogs of reproductions made exactly in the manner of the originals and some signed. Yet their is a big difference as we can see and that difference is huge in value. Which most know but I am not sure many were as informed what actually the difference was between a Print "Fine Art Print" vs a Reproduction Print which these are. Like I said the title of this thread needs to be changed to have a Reproduction in front of it for unsuspecting readers.

Found this Article. I think it was more prevalent in the 80's and 90's and in the news more than you here now. But you can see how easy it would be to get duped by the small terminology difference.

www.nytimes.com/1987/07/22/nyregion/fake-art-prints-big-business-getting-bigger.html?pagewanted=all

"well the first mistake was feeding the trolls"

Right. People disagree with the labeling of these and therefore they are "trolls". Does that make the OP a shill? damn the internet is stupid these days.

Let's not forget one important fact in all of this....today as of right this second JJ is a silent owner of this publishing house.....

Haha, no worries I missed debating on this site, its always good back and forth. I can see your point I just made the comments as those that commented to correct people were hammered as being negative. I think they were valid points to make for all the other people reading that might not be posting or have questions. The great thing about the forum is these debates bring more information out instead of the normal banter of people maybe glossing over some of these differences. Also i didnt mean to troll as one other put it, and I never said these were fakes, I posted the article on how people sell these as originals. Also some artists actually signed and numbered these type of reproductions which I am sure is much more confusing. These reproductions seem to 100% on the up and up but some people starting to talk about he hype of auctions and possibly being worth more seemed like a good time to bring up the difference, in case someone might have not been as thorough as the rest of you.

As far as the thread I think anyone reading the last page compared to the first 6 will get more info than they care for.

Resident keyboard warrior out in force with their silly comments 2 days on the bounce.

And you Alex are the type of kid that got picked on in school

Can't see what all the fuss is about here. From what i've read and seen the publisher has been very clear on the details of these prints. Great provenience and as transparent as it gets. Haven't got one yet but very tempted with either 'Target' or 'Hand'.

You are one of the people coming in here trying to discredit someone for buying an image of art that they like.

 I think the prints are a very good buy.

 The definition of a facsimile, is an exact copy true to the original source.

 The prints would be OK if they were printed today by a printer not connected to Jasper Johns. What makes these prints desirable and unique is that they have been produced by the same people and printer which produced the original prints for Jasper Johns. Plus ULAE only makes art lithographs and prints in other mediums for selected artists.

    These John facsimiles, were produced with his authorisation and in the 70's.

Of course they are not described as prints or an edition so as not to confuse with the edition made for Jasper Johns.

 I would call these prints special and unique in their own way due to them being made by ULAE in a limited number plus due to their slight size difference from the edition made for Jasper Johns.

  ULAE does have some signed Jasper Johns prints available for sale at affordable prices (compared to some of the over priced prints by "urban artists" today ) www.ulae.com/jasperjohns/index.aspx


     I'm wondering what the reaction would be if say for example Modern Multiples announced one day they have some Banksy facsimile prints available for sale for a couple of hundred dollars each.