Post #204657 by Sneakytiki on Tue, Dec 27, 2005 12:41 PM

Okay, prints are not as appealing to me as paintings, usually... But to say a print is not a piece of art is an untrue blanket statement. Photographers such as Ansel Adams did excruciating #'s of prints, dodging, burning, changing times, focus , filters etc.. to get a perfect piece of art that was nothing like you'd get at the photomat. Albrecht Durer of Germany brought woodcuts to a fine art level in his prints, granted I'd rather have the wood block but still... Then there are monoprints, which I've done, which are each quite unique, one of a kinds, and artists such as Jim flora and Deitch worked in print mediums, looks like linocut, to produce beautiful works. Silk screens/serigraphs... Think Andy Warhol... yup printer.... All prints are somewhat unique.... Some more so than others. I think what people are against spending money on a lithograph (fancy speak for mass produced print) or digital print, aiming to recreate a painting, but understand, many works of art were created originally as a print, and that said the sharp lines/ contours you associate with the "SHAG/mid-century style" were created and first used by and because of printers and the print medium.