James Jean News and Releases

General art-related discussion.
User avatar
AlanCampbell
Art Expert
Posts: 2195
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Contact:

Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:19 pm

if the quality is similar to Lotus war pyramid its probably worth it
User avatar
dsanacore
Art Expert
Posts: 6408
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: USA

Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:19 pm

Dear JJ,

You're awesome. You have an absurdly large catalog of back work with hundreds of amazing pieces. Please pick one of these to print next instead of lobster tattoos.

Sincerely,
A fan
Image Image
User avatar
mfaith
EB Team Emeritus
Posts: 52227
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:50 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:25 pm

dsanacore wrote:Dear JJ,

You're awesome. You have an absurdly large catalog of back work with hundreds of amazing pieces. Please pick one of these to print next instead of lobster tattoos.

Sincerely,
A fan
This. Plus nix the lithographs. :?
So it goes...
User avatar
finneganm
Art Freak
Posts: 16294
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: NJ

Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:33 pm

There's nothing wrong with well done lithographs. Dude is charging 100 bucks for two images. They're not for me, but I'd jump on any opportunity to get two signed James Jean images I was into for a hundred bucks; it's a goddamn steal.
...
...
That's what she said
User avatar
dsanacore
Art Expert
Posts: 6408
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: USA

Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:44 pm

I have zero issues with it being a lithograph. I'm an equal opportunity collector. I'm just trying to cut back on buying things I know I'll never frame and unfortunately lobster tats doesn't make the cut for my wall.
Image Image
User avatar
chan011
Art Expert
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:18 pm
Location: Cali

Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:46 am

Tetsuojin wrote:Nice designs as always, but printed as offset lithos??? :( That's basically just buying a regular mass produced printed book or magazine, but on better paper. Gonna pass on this one for sure.
my Murakami would beg to differ
User avatar
mfaith
EB Team Emeritus
Posts: 52227
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:50 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:54 am

I'm barely on board with giclees. I know some art styles just don't work well with screenprinting and so giclees are the only option for faithful reproduction. So i can stand those in some cases. But lithographs i just have zero interest in owning. That may mean I miss out on some things, but I'm ok with that. I got plenty of other things in queue to spend my money on. Good luck to those who're going for it, in any event. :cheers:
So it goes...
User avatar
gonzo303
Art Freak
Posts: 18433
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:49 pm

Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:56 am

mfaith wrote:I'm barely on board with giclees. I know some art styles just don't work well with screenprinting and so giclees are the only option for faithful reproduction. But lithographs i just have zero interest in owning. That may mean I miss out on some things, but I'm ok with that. I got plenty of other things in queue to spend my money on. Good luck to those who're going for it, in any event. :cheers:
A Mark Ryden Litho is hands down just as impressive and beautiful as any screenprint out there. its hard to get past I understand but some aren't too bad in person.
Same fudge, different drop.
User avatar
mtarail
Art Expert
Posts: 3320
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:01 am
Location: AZ

Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:49 am

The giclees produced by a lot of prominent artists on this site (Esao/Bannon/Geddes/Jean) are printed on thick paper and are awesome. A lot of images just can't be done as screen prints without the costs being insane. I don't have any problem with buying a giclee if I like the image. I've seen some high quality lithos first hand, (a few Ryden's and the Ansin Kubrick poster). They are nice but imo they don't hold a candle to screen prints or giclees. I have yet to see a litho that comes close, in terms of vibrancy of colors.

I don't like this set by Jean enough to buy it. But if I liked the image I'd be pretty bummed that it was a litho. I'd be 100% willing to pay more for a giclee.
User avatar
Codeblue
Yaks 2 Much
Posts: 52816
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Expresso Beans

Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:36 am

Y'all obvs don't own any fudge printed using 5000 year old stones.
RupertPupkin wrote:I live by this rule and this rule alone: people are drymounting idiots.
User avatar
punch
Art Expert
Posts: 3982
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:22 pm

Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:15 am

mfaith wrote:I'm barely on board with giclees. I know some art styles just don't work well with screenprinting and so giclees are the only option for faithful reproduction. So i can stand those in some cases. But lithographs i just have zero interest in owning. That may mean I miss out on some things, but I'm ok with that. I got plenty of other things in queue to spend my money on. Good luck to those who're going for it, in any event. :cheers:
Oh please.. Lothographs have been around for 200 years and will continue to be around long after we're dead. That's a pretty uninformed stance to take. Read up on art and printing history. Many great artists in the couple centuries have only made prints on lithographs and they are still cherished today.

Movie screen prints are A-OK in the collection but fine art lithos have no place! There's a reason we're in the kiddie pool of the art world.
User avatar
jkw3000
EB Team
Posts: 23409
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:22 pm
Location: NYC

Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:25 am

For my money nothing beats a cave wall as an art medium, anyway we can get stuff printed on that?
35mmpaul wrote:We are addicted to things that hurt our butts.
User avatar
Tetsuojin
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:38 am
Location: California

Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:25 am

punch wrote:
mfaith wrote:I'm barely on board with giclees. I know some art styles just don't work well with screenprinting and so giclees are the only option for faithful reproduction. So i can stand those in some cases. But lithographs i just have zero interest in owning. That may mean I miss out on some things, but I'm ok with that. I got plenty of other things in queue to spend my money on. Good luck to those who're going for it, in any event. :cheers:
Oh please.. Lothographs have been around for 200 years and will continue to be around long after we're dead. That's a pretty uninformed stance to take. Read up on art and printing history. Many great artists in the couple centuries have only made prints on lithographs and they are still cherished today.

Movie screen prints are A-OK in the collection but fine art lithos have no place! There's a reason we're in the kiddie pool of the art world.
Actually there's two types of lithography: stone and offset, which are completely different from each other. Stone lithography, like screen printing, is an art unto itself; artwork is drawn with grease pencils onto giant limestones,etched with acid and inked with paper over a large hand press. Most printing from the 19th century was this type, including the early 20th century. I would say that most of the art prints from famous artists are stone lithographs. Offset lithography is modern day printing where the image is photo mechanically burned onto flexible thin metal plates and printed on modern presses using inked rollers. All commercial and industrial printing is done by offset. So not all lithographs are the same. If the James Jean prints were stone lithographs, that would indeed be worth getting, since stone lithography takes time, skill, patience and true talent to produce a quality print. Offset..not so much...a good experienced pressman would do a good enough job. Most modern offset presses are digital, which means it's more a laser jet printer than true offset.
User avatar
shredkeenan
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Houston, TX

Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:49 am

Tetsuojin wrote:Offset..not so much...a good experienced pressman would do a good enough job. Most modern offset presses are digital, which means it's more a laser jet printer than true offset.
Digital printing is NOT a type of lithography. It is like your home 4 color CMYK printer. Basically a low quality giclee, since most giclee printers use 8 or 12 ink colors. You are going to be able to see little colored dots if you look at it up close.

Offset lithography can definitely produce great prints, and it can be done many ways. Most high volume commercial printing uses offset lithography, but still with a 4 color CMYK process. However, you can also do offset lithography using spot colors. This Jean print uses both, CMYK for the figures, plus a red ink for the background.

You could do an offset lithograph run using all spot colors, which would give you results akin to screenprinting, only much less labor intensive for a large run.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to turn their nose up at a print just based on the fact that it's a lithograph.
User avatar
Dario33
Art Expert
Posts: 2085
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 12:23 pm
Location: MSP

Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:40 am

Reminder that Pressure Printing is handling the printing of these. They're one of the best around. I'd only expect top-notch quality.
Post Reply