EB Forum

if the quality is similar to Lotus war pyramid its probably worth it

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Y'all obvs don't own any fudge printed using 5000 year old stones.

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.

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.

For my money nothing beats a cave wall as an art medium, anyway we can get stuff printed on that?

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.

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.

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.

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