What is an Original Print?

What Is A Print?
Printmaking: The Historical Background by Carl Zigrosser

The practice of signing prints in pencil is of fairly recent origin. The earliest prints were not signed at all. Later a signature or monogram was placed directly on the plate, block, or stone, either in the composition or in the margin directly below. Most reproductive prints, logically, have notations in the margin indicating the painter and engraver; for instance on the Village Dance is engraved on the left Rubens pinx. (Rubens painted it) and on the right Bolswert sculp. (Bolswert engraved it). Whistler and Haden were among the first to sign their prints in pencil. Whistler's later prints were signed with his Butterfly mark and the word imp., indicating that he also printed the plate. Whistler's and Haden's earlier prints were issued unsigned. The theoretical justification for the artist's signature in pencil is the implication that he inspected the impression and approved of it. It is amusing to note that Haden would sign any early unsigned print brought to him for the fee of a guinea. The later British and American Schools, Cameron, Bone, Arms, and the like, were quite meticulous in the printing and signing of their proofs. Today practically all prints are signed in pencil by the artist, and the signature is assumed to be a guaranty of authenticity and originality. Reproduction of paintings or prints have also been issued, presumably in limited editions and signed in pencil by the artist. The theoretical justification again is that the artist has seen and approved of the print. It is of course a legitimate enterprise. Jacques Villon made a number of color prints after paintings by Matisse, Picasso, and the like. The prints were issued in limited quantities, and each print was signed both by the painter and by the engraver. If, however, the craftsman-reproducer does not sign the print but the designer does, or if the work is reproduced photomechanically without any mention thereof, then there is nothing to indicate whether the signed print is an original or a reproduction. In this ambiguous light the practice of signing reproductions in pencil is highly questionable.

In the past there was a division of labor in the production of prints. The earliest woodcuts were the product of two sets of hands, the designer and the woodcutter or Formschneider. In the XVI century the names of the designers generally became known, whereas the woodcutters usually remained anonymous but often highly skilled craftsmen. We do, however, know the names of several, such as Lützelberger, who cut Holbein's Dance of Death, and Boldrini who cut blocks for Titian. Dürer did not cut his own woodblocks although he engraved his own copper engravings. We do not think the less of Dürer's woodcuts or those of Cranach, because they were cut by other hands. Among Chinese and Japanese prints likewise there was a division of labor between the designer, the woodcutter, and the printer; and the finest Japanese prints are held in high esteem. Here and today, the artists cut and print their own blocks; and even in Japan there is a new kind of original print Hanga, following the example of the West in uniting the functions of the designer, cutter, and printer. It has happened occasionally that electrotypes have been made directly from a wood block and that prints were then taken from the metal plate instead of from the wood, as for instance with some of the reproductive wood engravings of Timothy Cole. Although it would be extremely difficult to distinguish, on visual evidence alone, between prints from the two different sources, purists claim that only those from wood are entitled to rank as true prints.

In the early days engravings or etchings were probably printed in the artists' studios (Dürer's or Rembrandt's for example) by pupils and apprentices. Later, professional plate printers appeared: Bosse has a picture of such a studio. Some of the XIX century printers — Eugène Delâtre or Frederick Goulding — were renowned for the beauty and expertness of their printing. We do not value a fine Meryon etching the less for having heen printed by Delâtre. The technical treatment was relatively uncomplicated and the effect was dependent on straightforward drawing and subtle biting. A sensitive printer, given a model to follow, could produce any number of beautiful impressions up to the limit of the life of the copper plate. When, however, the plate became worn with repeated printings and was reworked and reinforced by foreign hands, the quality of the impressions deteriorated, as the sad specimens of late Rembrandts, Van Dycks, Piranesis, Goyas, and other Chalcographie prints can plainly bear witness. Nonetheless this negative judgment refers chiefly to the quality of the impression: such prints are still to all intents and purposes original prints, although pale reflections of fine early examples. Fraud enters into the situation only where some one, trading on the name and fame of the artist, misrepresents the quality of late impressions for commercial gain. The cultivated amateur or collector is much more conscious of printing quality today then in the past. If this were not true, then the various chalcographies of Rome, Paris, and Madrid would never have come into being.

Index  ||   Page 1  ||   Page 2  ||   Page 3  ||   Page 4  ||   Page 5

Copyright © 1961 Print Council of America
Used with permission.