The perception that prints are the ‘pour cousins’ of painting is outdated. Image: Picasso with linocut, 1959
Hands up if you hear the word ‘print’ and think ‘reproduction’? When you see a signed and numbered print by a high profile artist up for sale, do you assume it’s an original artwork, created on a plate of some sort by the artist and printed in a limited edition? Should you discover it’s a reproduction of an earlier print by that artist, is the signature worth more to you, or less? Does an original image produced on a computer and printed digitally constitute an art print? Is it still a print if it’s created on a 3-D printer? What about an image engraved into a traditional matrix and printed not onto paper but directly onto a wall? Are any of these images ‘real’ art anyway, or just cheap alternatives to bigger ticket, clearer-cut items like paintings on canvas?
