Jack Lowe wrote: > Gicl�e is simply a 'fancy' name for inkjet. Gicl�e is not a different > process to inkjet.
Jack, This is not technically speaking correct. 'Gicl�e' printing has indeed come to mean ANY inkjet printing process. This is however miss-representative of the history of the 'Gicl�e' print. Originally artists working in mixed media including photography were looking at ways of exploiting new inkjet processes for making prints. At the time (circa 1992) there were only a handful of possibilities. Namely, Iris (made by Ilford) and the humble Apple Colour Stylewriter or the large format options from the likes of HP. Only the Iris was truly capable of photographic quality. Many people put in time to research long-life inks and various media (well before all the media which is available now). Solutions were found and artists began exhibiting photographic works printed using the Iris. It was very difficult to get any galleries to accept these early forms of work as everyone was concerned about longevity. However, the Iris attained a very high degree of respect and a very loyal following. There are still specialists out there today in London and New York who have rows of these machines; just printing exhibition work for well known artists. The introduction of the word 'Gicl�e' was at the turning point of the digital injet revolution. Suddenly everyone had Epson printers and were printing very nice pictures. But how do you sell Epson prints to an art buying public - most of which own Epson printers themselves? BINGO - Gicl�e Now that sounds - expensive, arty etc That's how galleries can now justify selling Epson / HP/ Canon inkjet prints. Just call them 'Gicl�e' I think this represents a more honest representation of the name. By the way; it came from America. Michael =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
