Code of Ethics Copia

8/14/2019 Code of Ethics Copia

1/7

Excerpt From Code of Ethics For Original Printmaking

The Issue of Accepting Prints as Works of Art

Printmaking is one of the rare artistic practices that is involved with updating specific terminology anddeveloping guidelines so that artists will be able to use standardized procedures to identify their works.But why the necessity for a Code of ethics for Original Printmaking? The norms for authenticating printsthat are currently practiced appeared gradually throughout history, and were sometimes initiated by artistswho found various identification solutions to counteract forgers or indicate their techniques and the logicof their creative process. But it was more often publishers who imposed such norms so that prints wouldbe recognized as works of art and would interest new collectors. Some applications have stimulated livelydebate, and today, modifications that must be applied in answer to the evolution of the practice stillprovoke discussion among interested parties of differing opinions. It is important to understand that someartists will always be slightly in advance of the rules, and that their works will constantly pose thenecessity for revising the code of ethics so that it can be applied to the most innovative work. In creativefields, freedom reigns and modes of experimentation are in no way circumscribed, which is why the mostavant-garde works regularly break down the codes of identification and the borders between genres. Astatic code of ethics would ultimately not correspond to the practice of the art.

On the other hand, the code of ethics was developed to ensure the value of original prints on the artmarket; collectors demands for rareness and authenticity motivate artists to use standardizedidentification that can be easily deciphered. More specifically, since prints exist as several identical orsimilar copies, specific rules for numbering are required to indicate edition size and guarantee limits.

Other situations also call for clear definitions. This is notably the case in legal contexts where theprotection of the artists copyright and the rights of buyers are at stake. In fact, the code of ethics was

together on this basis from definitions intended to distinguish original prints from interpretive prints andreproductions.

To collate the current version of the code of ethics, we modified and added to definitions andidentification norms from earlier versions. We sought to respect fundamental principles and preservecontent which still proves relevant today in terms of application. This revision was motivated by theparticular identification problems now facing artists who work more in a spirit of experimentation thanwith the idea of finalizing a conventional edition of identical proofs. We had to reexamine therelationship of original printmaking with the techniques and technologies of reproduction. The advent ofthe photocopier and the computer called into question the limits and fundamental nature of the discipline.Finally, ethical behavior is not based solely on market values, and it was impossible to write a currentcode of ethics without considering diverse positions that reflect the investigative function of the work ofart.

Our research led us to examine the vast literature on the subject, and we realized that the sensitivequestions we were dealing with aroused lively debate, demonstrating a broad interest in printmaking as acontemporary art form, and giving it a credible ethical basis. We also examined the historic origins of thedesignations and handwritten inscriptions that have progressively made up the codes content. We werepleased to discover that artists in the past responded to the new techniques available to them with thesame sense of aesthetic investigation and freedom as today. This is why we propose to begin with asurvey of historical situations where issues of designation and differentiation are prominent and have hadan impact on developing the code of ethics for origina printmaking.


2/7

From Reproduction to Interpretive Printmaking

With the invention of the printing press, different fields of activity began to use the same technical meansand distribution possibilities. It was mainly with the development of the reproduction of paintings,executed with great concern for fidelity by highly skilled engravers, that the links between printing and

art formed at the margins of popular printing. Hand-printing, prized for its capacity to produce collectibleobjects, and the only way to distribute unique works of art, was threatened with extinction with the adventof photogravure techniques that gave rise to another type of art reproduction: the photomechanicalreproduction

Photogravure enjoyed considerable popular success due to its fidelity to the original and its accessibleprice. Handmade reproduction subsisted as a means of distributing works by well known artists, but it hadto take on a new designation to be distinguished from industrial printing, and was rebaptized interpretive

printing . Henceforth, this category would be recognized for particular qualities arising from thecontribution of an intermediary artist, who transposed the existing work into another medium via thematerial and expressive features of the manual processes of printmaking.

Hence, we can say that over the course of printing history, a dual evolution has been set up that ofcommercial reproduction for broad distribution, which benefited from industrial technical innovations,and that of interpretive printmaking, the value of which arose from skilled techniques the industry haddispensed with.

Artistic printmaking took a parallel trajectory, distinguished by its use of technical investigation foraesthetic potential. Printmakers have always familiarized themselves with the printing techniques thatwere available to them, and have creatively carried on aesthetic experimentation free of commercialintent. As this distinction became more entrenched, printmaking gradually achieved a status as artisticdiscipline, and prints acquired value on the art market. However, we shall see the difficulty of findingclearly differentiated criteria to distinguish creative printmaking from the reinterpretation of a work of art,since direct handling by the artist vs. technical assistance are sometimes difficult to differentiate. Anotherproblem arises between original print and photomechanical reproduction. The technical means

characteristic of the latter are also used to creative ends by innovative artists, which complicates theexercise of defining and differentiating.

From Artists Print to Original Print

The first prints we can categorize as original were created by artists freely using printmaking techniquesto make a new work. Often more impulsive in nature and more lyrically gestural in execution, these printswere somewhat under-appreciated because amateurs of skillfully engraved reproductions considered themslapdash. Such prints were occasionally acquired for important collections, like that of Michel deMarolles in the 17th century, a collection that served as a foundation for the subsequent print collectionOf the Bibliothque nationals de Paris, but these prints were not valued for being original.

Prints by artists not intended as reproductions of paintings were not truly recognized as a distinct categoryuntil the second half of the 19th century and, even then, specific interventions by the artist were necessaryto convince the public of their value as collectibles. Several factors contributed to the emergence oforiginal printmaking as an autonomous artistic practice, including the aesthetic renewal brought about byImpressionist artists and the profound originality of their prints, along with their sense of experimentationand their innovative concept of art. In Michel Melots authoritative book, LEstampe impressioniste, it isparticularly interesting to discover the major milestones of this phenomenal resurgence of printmaking,which can be called modern, as opposed to the academic printmaking practiced by interpretive engravers.

But how may we summarize the emergence of original printmaking that existed primarily because artistscreated a distinctive body of work connected to aesthetic thinking that was the basis for recognizing thework of art? First, we can emphasize the fact that the Impressionists developed their printmaking practice

outside the academic framework and were inspired by the creative explorations of such predecessors asRembrandt. Their practice also benefited from specific conditions, like free access to presses that had


3/7

until then been tightly controlled by public powers. The fact that artists could work hands-on led tofreeing the practice of commercial constraints and the repetitive demands of printing.

Unexplored paths could be taken and, during this period, the practice of printmaking was seen to evolveboth visually and materially. But more than achieving unprecedented technical effects or greaterexpressive potentials, the processes of printmaking provoked, to some extent, a new notion of arts

relationship with reality. What better technique than printmaking to strengthen the Impressionist notion ofthe transitory nature of reality and ephemeral modes of perception?

Developing the image in successive states corresponded to the artists desire to reapproach a subject andtransform it. The fleeting state of things was embodied in the sequential process of printmaking, as theprint recorded every modulation in thinking.

Impressionist artists were well aware of the artistic value of printmaking and sought to include it inexhibitions next to painting and drawing. They did not hesitate to show several experiments on the samesubject or several states of the same print simultaneously. The genre acquired distinction through worksthat enjoyed the Impressionists growing reputation; a discourse advocating that original prints berecognized as a distinct category of art gradually developed.

Printmaking and the Criteria of Originality

Certain criteria are required to recognize a work of art as such. In the case of original printmaking, it wasfirst necessary to have prints categorically recognized as an art genre before they could be valued asindividual works of art.

Printmakings originality first had to be established by developing an argument that prints be recognizedas art in order to distinguish them from industrial images. Hence, putting prints side by side with otherworks that were commonly accepted as art was one strategy that promoted the acceptance of printmaking.What constituted authenticity also had to be clearly established. Thus, there was an insistence on theautographic quality of execution and on technical refinements being executed by the artist whoparticipated directly in the process. Burry published a few texts to promote original printmaking and, inthe guise of doing so, in fact eulogized the aesthetic quality of Impressionist prints, validating theirspontaneous drawing, dramatic lighting and sense of atmosphere. Later, in 1875, Burty promoted la bellepreuve prints carefully pulled on old paper, where wide margins around the image afforded it an auraof distinction. Of course, arguments were also made on the aesthetic level, and etching became associatedwith modernity, a concept of which Beaudelaire so famously defended.

Guarantee of Rareness: The Inception of the Limited Edition

It was, however, around the notion of uniqueness that great imagination had to be exercised to turn printsproduced by techniques favoring multiple copies into rare objects since they werent unique, like

paintings. Through their practice, Impressionist artists helped associate the print with singularity, usuallyprinting variants and working with processes involving fine granulation which are difficult to executeuniformly. The first states of their prints were usually unique; these prints were not printed as editionsuntil the artists work was recognized. Hence, proofs were usually unique, as the artist carried out hiscreative interventions through the same printing process that was nevertheless invented to produceidentical copies.

Since rareness was a key criterion to attract collectors interest, norms for the limited edition were madesystematic at this time, and were guaranteed by irreversibly damaging the plate afterwards. We mustspecify, however, that artists who accepted the principle of the limited first edition were more resistant todestroying prints, yet publishers following Burry, who launched this new requirement to satisfyclientele imposed the practice to guarantee limited numbers. The appeal of rareness incited suchextravagant requests as three-print editions, but most of the time editions were around 350. Yet this wasstill far from the almost-unlimited editions that were current practice, where proofs pulled when the platewas worn were merely pate shadows of the first test.


4/7

Publishers who commissioned these limited art editions for sale thereby promoted the emergence of anew category of collector who was attracted by works that were not unique, hence cheaper, but thatnevertheless held all the virtues of original art, as the singularity of proofs substitutes for uniqueness.

But how could the singularity of proofs and the restricted number to editions be guaranteed? For a while,proofs were signed and dedicated to the buyer, but finally a system was adopted with numbering written

on every print, assigning each one its own number and indicating the total number of copies. By around1887 came the practice of a written inscription with signature, date and numbering, as well as certainannotations indicating state number, variants and sometimes the name of the printer.

From Original Printmaking to its Code of Ethics

Publishers contributed to the marketing of Impressionist prints and thereby initiated a valorization oforiginal prints as a distinct category of art object. They progressively systematized the limited edition andits corresponding annotations to suit collectors who wanted to ensure the authenticity and rareness of theiracquisition. Understandably, there was a need to record these codes and practices in a guide so that artists,who had no choice but to assume responsibility for editioning and selling their works, could identify

proofs according to conventions that were consistent and easily recognizable by the public. A code ofethics with precise information on the designations of various categories of proofs and ways ofidentifying them proves to be a precious tool for collectors, artists and publishers alike.

Over the course of its various editions, however, the code of ethics has undergone certain modifications,and it is appropriate to examine the choices that sometimes emerge and the risks related to one stance oranother. Some issues have been the object of debate, and the evolution of the practice has also necessitatereadjustments so that information is kept up to date. It is interesting to see, throughout the evolution ofthe code of ethics, that the contours of a discipline are defined in a creative practice that is itself inevolution, faced with new techniques, procedural standards and aesthetic thinking that positions thecharacteristics of printmaking or, on the contrary, affirms its links with other disciplines.

It is appropriate to clarify the emergent question that determined the development of this version of theCode of Ethics for Original Printmaking, and we shall approach them by showing how the views of artistsand publishers have been integrated, since artists are concerned with broadening aesthetic experience andpublishers with the market.

Issues Surrounding the Definition of Original Printmaking

Differentiating a category of objects from other similar objects poses the problem of clarifying anddefining their distinctive natures. In the case of original printmaking, these problems surround thedefinition of originality . In her introduction to earlier editions of the code of ethics, Claudette Houldtraced the various modulations of this difficult definition with a simple description. Originality is more aquality responding to criteria that let us evaluate whether a work is the product of an authentic creative

process generating something new that conforms to the aesthetic aspirations of the artist. To recognizesuch originality, it is necessary to establish a prints relative independence from an original precursor the essential idea of the image by the creating artist, the preponderance of the artists decisions in theprocess of execution and, uniqueness aside, to specify the conditions under which this quality may beaccepted.

The text of the proposed legislation submitted to the cultural and social affairs commission of the FrenchChamber in 1976 by Claude Grard Marcus is one of the most complete in that it locates originalprintmaking in relation to related categories, such as reproduction and interpretive printmaking. It readsas follows:


5/7

Article 7

Any facsimile, moulding or reproduction of a work of art by photographic or other mechanical processeswhich creates the illusion of authenticity must be labelled reproduction or bear another sufficiently clearand explicit sign or mark to avoid confusion.

After the present law is enacted, such objects from previous versions must visibly and indelibly bear thelabel reproduction .

Article 8

Only prints pulled in black or colour from one or several plates, entirely conceived and executed by handby the same artist are considered original , regardless of the technique employed. The handwrittensignature of the artist on these prints implies his or her responsibility.Engravings, lithographs, serigraphs, etc. by an artist or printer-craftsman based on the work of a creativeartist are considered interpretive prints. In this case, the name of the printer must figure legibly in thecomposition with the label X . lithographer, engraver, etc.

In all cases where original or interpretive prints are part of limited editions, each print must carry anorder number as well as that of the total edition on all supports used. Artists and collaborators proofsmust also bear special numbering. The label reprint must be indicated on each proof

It is interesting to see that efforts to establish precise definitions have mainly been made in legal spheres,either to ensure the protection of art buyers the Marcus proposals specific aim to protect copyrightor define what objects may enjoy the financial, customs or other privileges granted by the government.On legal grounds, inclusions and exclusions must be precisely delimitable. This is why little room is leftfor ambiguity. In this way, the unity of conception and execution connected with manual processesguaranteed the authenticity of the original print beyond a doubt. The legal definition also legitimated thelimited edition as a substitute for the uniqueness linked to other kinds of art, and imposed numbering andidentification for all editioned prints as a guarantee. Even so, the Marcus proposal was open to reprintingin so far as it was mentioned, which means that, legally, the destruction of plates is not required to

guarantee limitedness, and the inscriptions and signature of the artist are held in faith as proof of honesty.

The advantage of this definition is that it corresponds with the demands for authenticity and uniquenessthat are the basis of the art market, and with this definition, the recognition of original prints as a distinctcategry of artwork was set in law.

One difficulty arises from the fact that a substantial number of prints are considered works of art bymuseums even though they dont fulfill these criteria. Remember that authentic, creative prints have beenproduced by mechanical or photomechanical means.

Some works are not part of limited editions and can even be confused with common advertising. Finally,it is not always easy to eliminate technical assistance in the production of an original work of art,

regardless of the technique. To what extent can a print be realized with the help of an assistant withoutlosing its status as original?

For this version of the code of ethics, the objective has been to acknowledge the artists creativeinvestigation and ensure that his or her field of experimentation was open. The artists intervention washence a decisive factor, which avoided the exclusion of present or future techniques. Of course, aconsequence of this is that the demarcation between original printmaking, reproduction and interpretiveprintmaking is more blurred. The distinction can no longer be characterized by technical factura, andvisible to the naked eye. This is why the ethic is now more a question of honesty with regard toidentification, and why a technical form outlining modes of execution, identity of participants and theensemble of prints and proofs in an edition is the only registration document affording the buyer a preciseidea of the originality of the print he or she wishes to acquire.

Original Printmaking and the Art Market


6/7

Does recognizing original printmaking as a category of art give value to the individual works that fulfillthe criteria for originality?

Though prints are now included in the collections of major institutions that devote exhibitions andpublications to them, perhaps we must admit there exists a certain distance between originality, in the

sense of authenticity and rareness, and the recognition of prints as significant pieces in the historicalevolution of art. A print might be perfectly original in the strictest sense of these traditional criteria andbe perfectly insignificant aesthetically.

There are, in fact, several criteria which a work art must fulfill in order to acquire value on the art market.The reputation of the artist and the aesthetic quality of his or her work have great influence in attractingpotential buyers. As far as works of art created independently of market demand are concerned, valuedepends in fact on appreciation usually involving random criteria, whether personal or formulated byconnoisseurs who play a role in confirming new art forms or discovering little known works.

Buyers can develop a knowledge of a particular corpus of prints, appreciating the technical and aestheticqualities; this is how they become enlightened collectors and apprehend the value of the works they

acquire. On the art market, value is usually forged over time, and this can only be done with theassistance of interventions that promote the recognition of objects made by artists as works of art, theappreciation of particular aesthetic and technical qualities, and the attribution of significance in theevolution of art. Of course, a work must still be authentic and, if possible, rare.

We must recognize that a great deal of emphasis has been placed on authenticity and uniqueness as thefamous criteria for originality, sometimes to the point of fetishizing the artists signature and numbering,now found on simple reproductions. What does a signature at the bottom of a reproduction authenticate,in fact? The original quality of work reproduced? Its similitude? The artists approval of the quality of thederivatives? Unfortunately, such inscriptions have thus lost their power to authenticate originality.

The demand for handmade production by artists has also had perverse effects, and has sometimes led toobscuring the intervention by interpreting artists, so that certain interpretive prints may be consideredoriginal on the market. If excluding photomechanical, technological or industrial processes still persistedin the definition of original printmaking, we would be preventing creative artists from evolvingexpressive languages and modes of conceptualization and even hampering the evolution of printingtechniques, and the print world would be depleted of an imposing body of works of art that are highlyinnovative.

The unique copy or highly limited edition print has been no less fetishized, to guarantee rareness. Thepublic no longer demands rareness as rigorously, and an artists international reputation is sufficient to

justify an edition in answer to high demand. We must not forget that one of printmakings justificationswas the accessibility to authentic art it offered to people of modest means.

Today, the popularity of unsigned, unnumbered commercial reproductions on common paper confirms

the distribution of printed matter, and the fact that a vast public usually has contact with art throughreproductions or interpretive prints. Rarely do people realize they can own authentic works of art byacquiring original prints.

Ethics and Aesthetics

How can the application of a code of ethics be conceived today? As we have seen, the code of ethics wasconceived in the spirit of providing precise definitions to prevent the incorrect use of certain terms andambiguous identification practices. The information provided to artists permits standardizednomenclatures and identification codes while enlightening the print buyer on the criteria that distinguishoriginal prints, and the meaning of the inscriptions and numbers that appear on them. The certificate ofauthenticity for original prints should specify the originating artist, the collaborators, where applicable,and the techniques used, as well as the printer and location of printing. This information allows factorsthat may have an impact on the value of the print, but not on its originality, to be evaluated. One can


7/7

thereby distinguish between a print conceived over the course of the manual processes executed andprinted entirely by the artist from one the artist entrusts to technicians, and which they must reproduceaccording to specifications and print mechanically, the latter being considered as deriving from anoriginal concept and involving printing as pure media. Both works may be original, but their valuedepends on the artists reputation and the publics level of receptivity to mechanical and photomechanicalprocesses.

Publishers have also built an ethics of editioning based on the fact that all copies must be equal in quality.This demand leads them to entrust edition-printing to experienced printers who can provide suchuniformity. This practice has long dominated the code of ethics by providing numbering andidentification rules adapted to the kind of edition conceived mainly for sale. The realities of creativeprintmaking assumed entirely by the artist and experimental in nature have perhaps been sidelined.The state proofs and variants created by the artist during printing were not given their proper value, asthey were considered imperfect and unfinished compared to prints selected for publishing. The code ofethics was meant to reveal the conceptual wealth and aesthetic traits of printed art. To do this, new statushad to be accorded to the experimental nature of proofs, and adequate identification guidelines had to beprovided. Into ethics conceived for the market demands, we have integrated ethics corresponding to theexploratory nature of the creative process and the basic freedom of the artist, who can rework a matrix topull a new state, reprint and verify a new inking possibility, reintegrate a previous image into a newproject, etc.

Finally, ethics as the application of processes that generate and ensure rareness has largely been calledinto question by artists opposed to using works of art for speculative ends. Thus, they have createdperfectly original prints but occasionally printed almost unlimited numbers of them and refused to put thesigns of authenticity and rareness: signature and numbering. These works then circulate freely andpublicly, and reach people who are more concerned with image content or the conceptual nature of thework than by its investment value. Though this new ethical position may counteract efforts to validateprints as collectible objects, it nevertheless influences reflections on the role of art and artists.

Nicole Malenfant

Pages:13-25From Code of Ethics For Original Printmaking

ISBN 2-922018-05-9

Code of Ethics Copia

Documents

Transcript of Code of Ethics Copia