More bad practice/ethics by publisher

[Roboframer]

Below are two original watercolours by Sue Howells that arrived today - mounted. Image size approx 16 x 12"

We have collectors of this artists' work, the retail on these two is £376 each, not including framing. They are as good as sold, there is a waiting list.






I took the mounts off to replace them with my own, look what I discovered....









I am so angry - I have bought one painting cut in half, in fact I have probably got a sixth of a mural.

Each image was not made as an image in its own right.

I will send this info elsehwere too. Then, when I have had some feedback I will have it out with the publisher. I've suspected this has been going on for a long time - I call this practice "hash painting" which MAY be acceptable if

a. The publisher/dealer is up front about it and

b. It is reflected in the price.

What do you think?

(Publisher - Alpha one marketing)

Sorry about the wide post - think it's because I cropped the photos.

[John]

Are both pieces signed by the artist?

If so, I don't see a problem.

[Roboframer]

Go to the Grumble - they see a problem!

I asked for two originals - I have a painting cut up into smaller ones. Yes, the artist signed both pieces.

Can't you see that this is a rip off?

An original is something that starts one side and finishes at the next, this is part of one long piece, would you want the Bayeux Tapestry cut up into sections and would that be OK if each piece was signed?

I say again - Read The Grumble.

[markw]

Your not buying the original - the image you are buying is a crop of the original thats seen as commercially viable. Surely, if you have a good market for the prints you sell your customer the "image" as seen.

Many reproductions are part of the original image. The reproduction stage seen as the opportunity to create something slightly diffent to the original - this has always been accepted as the artists perogative. Many artists - especially self publishing, muck around with the original at the repro stage - changing colours - size - even cloning out bits they dont like - the end result is the new "original image"

If the image you had is reproduced as a single image and then chopped up afterwards then i would agree that its been manipulated for increased gain and i wouldnt be happy with the publishers.

[Framing Norah]

Don't see anything here to get upset about.

How do you feel about an artist who crops a bit out of their work either before, or during, the framing process?

[mick11]

I'm with Roboframer on this one.
This is obviously a picture that has been cut in half.
John thought he was buying two pictures, in fact he has bought two halves of one and at a grossly inflated price.

[Roboframer]

Your not buying the original - the image you are buying is a crop of the original thats seen as commercially viable. Surely, if you have a good market for the prints you sell your customer the "image" as seen.

Many reproductions are part of the original image. The reproduction stage seen as the opportunity to create something slightly diffent to the original - this has always been accepted as the artists perogative. Many artists - especially self publishing, muck around with the original at the repro stage - changing colours - size - even cloning out bits they dont like - the end result is the new "original image"

If the image you had is reproduced as a single image and then chopped up afterwards then i would agree that its been manipulated for increased gain and i wouldnt be happy with the publishers.

Mark,

This is an ORIGINAL, not a reproduction. this is production line stuff to cope with demand, it is very sharp practice. No matter what - the images are contunuations of others to their left and right, not just the same style but the same PAINTING.

[Roboframer]

Don't see anything here to get upset about.

How do you feel about an artist who crops a bit out of their work either before, or during, the framing process?

Well I AM upset, I must just have higher standards and morals than some, I don't know.

As for your question - I don't see what that has to do with anything, but anyway, this artist has probably cropped about four foot of the work away and sold it as eight other paintings. That's what you CALL cropping!

The above is (/are) painted on Fabriano paper, it is available by the roll!

As for DURING the framing process well what are we talking about, an artist or a framer? The best artists don't need to do their own framing and the best framers don't have the time to paint!

[osgood]

I would just like to give my personal opinion on this situation.
I agree with John and Framing Norah. I would have no problem with buying a painting such as this, if it was something that appealed to me.

When people manufacture anything they are entitled to seek ways to expedite the manufacturing process so that their product can be made in a shorter time, thus enabling them to get more done in a given time and make a little more money.
We, as framers often use methods such as cutting a weeks worth of frames and mats at one time to expedite the process. Does this mean we should drop the price to our customer accordingly because it has taken a liittle less time? I don't think I would be doing that!

As far as the price being inflated because of this method of production, how can that be so when usually the price of art is governed by what people are prepared to pay. If this artist has a waiting list, then the price is probably too low! The price of art is not like the price of a fridge or a toaster, it is based on demand. If the demand is high, the price can increase accordingly.

Artists have many and various processes such as using a brush, or chalk or fingers or pallet knives, to paint a picture and it seems to me that this is just another different style of painting.

I also do not see this as being immoral or deceptive or negative in any way.

For what it's worth, that's my opinion!

[Roboframer]

I tell you what, were I a serious collector of Sue Howell's work I would demand a refund on the lot. This stinks!

This has confirmed suspicions, some of her stuff has been just too much the same in the past and with no paper margins. All, or most artists paint on a support larger than the image.

If I fall for things like this then the people making me fall for it are making me - unwittingly - decieve my customers. And now I have heard myself say that - I think Alpha One Marketing are sacked.

There will be no print of the whole thing, it will be about six foot long!

There will no doubt be prints of some if it - I could not give one.

I have grumbled this

http://www.thegrumble.com/ubb/ultimateb ... 1;t=010802

I have sent an email complete with above images to the FATG and also to The Picture Business (who gave Sue Howells a 2 page spread recently). I have also emailed Alpha One. Not interested in the artist, I am not her customer.

At present we intend to return the paintings - even though we know we will sell them with one phone call (as long as we keep quiet about what we have found - NOT AN OPTION) and cancel our account with Alpha One. Cannot imagine what they can say to change our minds. And if they don't say it by tomorrow anyway then we apply our intention.

[Roboframer]

When people manufacture anything they are entitled to seek ways to expedite the manufacturing process so that their product can be made in a shorter time, thus enabling them to get more done in a given time and make a little more money.
We, as framers often use methods such as cutting a weeks worth of frames and mats at one time to expedite the process. Does this mean we should drop the price to our customer accordingly because it has taken a liittle less time? I don't think I would be doing that!

Bad comparison Ormond art and manufacturing have nothing to do with each other. BUT - I make my own ready made frames - If I framed a picture in a 20 x 16 frame it would cost £X to order and would take me, say 20 minutes.

If I make FIFTY 20 x 16 frames to be sold as ready mades I would deduct a fitting charge AND a quantity discount, They would take less than 5 minutes each. This is what I actually do - I make my own ready mades.

But let's just keep this simple can we

How many originals did I order?

(Say 'Two John')

How many did the artist paint?

(Say 'One John)

So how come I still got two?

(Say 'cause she cut it up John')

Say AND AT LEAST ANOTHER TWO PEOPLE SHARED IT WITH YOU - JOHN)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion - mine is this - anyone who cannot see what is going on here - stick to framing!

[osgood]

art and manufacturing have nothing to do with each other.

We will just have to disagree on this point, John!

[markw]

The fact that they are originals makes it less of a problem - Its the artists perogative to do with the original as they wish - thats what your paying for. If you hadnt opened the mount would you have been any the wiser? I know artists who cut large paintings into little pieces and the resulting images have been very good. Your selling an image that the artist has decided works when cropped - they may have decided that it didnt work as a whole unit. You state that you would have no difficulty selling them - rather proves my point that the artist has created two very saleable images by clever cropping.

The about face on this argument would be if you decided to cut the artists original in half and had strayed away from the image that was intended by the artist.

[markw]

The lack of openness here is what I feel is lacking. If the artist and publisher think this is o.k., then why conceal their methods from the customer. If this artist's work stands in it's own right, then what are they affraid of?

I dont see any lack of openness. With originals you buy what you see. Your not pretending to sell your customer the bit that might be under the mount. The customer would without doubt buy one or both paintings feeling that they had two good pictures that will no doubt increase in value - regardless of the fact that it was originally one piece.

If I was in Roboframers position and I was worried about the ethics then i would be open with my customer and let them decide. I doubt that I would end what seems to be a profitable business relationship with the agent.

[sarah]

Firstly an original is not solely a piece that starts at one side of a piece of paper/canvas/wall and stops at the other side. What about a Trip tyche. It is three in one, each piece starting at one side and finishing at the other but is in fact part of a larger piece.

Dictionary def of original: "An authentic work of art" Doesn't state a starting point and an ending point. And from what is said you have an authentic piece of art. In fact you have two authentic pieces of art.

The artist obviously made the decision to make her single piece of original art into two when she decided a. to cut them and b. to sign both of them. I don't blame her either, savvy business sense.

Maybe you should have a go at the artist rather than the publisher. At the end of the day they are selling you what they received from the artist.

As for checking out the grumble - why? Some people on there happen to agree with you - I don't, their 'grumblings' aren't going to change that.

My advice, frame up and shut up. Then charge your customer plenty for the privilege of owning TWO ORIGINAL and beautifully framed pieces of art.

Have a good day.

[Roboframer]

Well,

I'll try and comment on all since my last post.


Markw. Yes, the artist can do what they wish, But the simple fact is that I asked for two originals. Two separate paintings created as such in their own right. Say what you like but I did not get that. It's not a case of painting something then deciding to crop it, It's a case of intending to paint, basically, a mural to be sliced up and sold as separate paintings.

It's also a case of the publisher not making customers aware of this practice, which they definitely should do. Had I known that that was how they did things I could have made a decision based on it. For some, obviously it is not a problem.

I suspected this from looking at her limited editions and originals, and when I saw these I just confirmed it.

Sarah,

I don't know why people keep banging on about triptychs. For a kick off this is two, not three and also triptychs are made AS triptychs, either 3 images on one piece of paper, with space between or 3 separate paintings, each with space around. I do not have a problem with that but it is not what I ordered.

You have contradicted yourself too - saying that an original does not have to start at one side and finish on the other and then saying that each piece of a triptych does just that. 3 orignals, not one sliced up. An original triptych is not one painting sliced up with no border to play with. A triptych PRINT can be just that though BUT the printer/publisher leaves a margin so that you can mount it so that you can see where one image ends and the other starts.

The original here has been made into more than 2 paintings.

Not interested in contacting the artist, I am the customer of the publisher who knows exactly what is going on.

As for The Grumble I posted it there because it is an extrememly powerful tool, there are far more qualified people there than there are here, not just the forum, the country. Standards are higher, they are streets ahead of us in standards and quality. The fact that the majority agree with me there and the minority do here speaks volumes for standards in this country.

Not your average framer, you certainly are not, join the club! Mick 11 too, another prolific Grumbler.

[sarah]

Robo,

You have decided that you are right, fair enough. I think you're making something out of nothing.

It's irrelevant how many pieces the original has been made into. The fact remains that the artist did it herself. The artist chose to make one large piece into several smaller ones. That is the artists prerogative.

If it makes your day go with a bit of a swing by all means pull my post apart. I still think that the publisher is not at fault, in fact I don't think any one is at fault. The artist painted a picture she than decided to cut up into several smaller ones. You bought them and now you're going to sell them, for a profit I'm sure.

As for this comment about the Grumble "The fact that the majority agree with me there and the minority do here speaks volumes for standards in this country." Think it has nothing to do with framing standards maybe whinging standards, but certainly not framing.

As I said shut up and frame up.

[markw]

This is a realy difficult string to follow without scrolling back and forth - Roboframer - keep the res down on your pics.

This is the point on the grumble where the participants start to talk about favourite recipes to aviod the subject. You will find that over the years the Grumble participants are as divided over these sort of issuse as those on this forum. We all gain from intelligent debate but lose the plot when we start to make personal remarks.

If I was buying from you (Roboframer) I would be much happier knowing that you had high standards in the work you produce and the product you sell. How do you let the casual visitor to your business know that you have such exacting standards?

[Roboframer]

I had cropped the photos That must have been what made them so big, sorted now.

Can I ask if it is unreasonable to expect publishers and artists to be up front about doing things like this or is it OK to let you discover it for yourself.

Maybe artists/publishers could come into your shop and unroll a four foot long original and say "You can have it for £1504 or £376
per foot" Is that a good way to buy art? Don't think the likes of Bonhams or the Serpentine gallery would go for it somehow!

To answer your question Mark we have a radio ad - runs every day all year round - starts with something like "Standard framing materials and practices can actually ruin your artwork.................. "

But for the casual visitor we have signs dotted about stating what our standards are, including that we do not deal with print publishers who reproduce the same image in other formats. As for originals, well, we have not come across this before and assume that most peoples' perception of an original is the same as ours.

I don't think things are getting that personal - sorry if I seem aggressive.

The Grumblers take a lot more than this to avoid the subject..... check THIS out - if you haven't already - it all kicks off after 'Trapper's' first post.

(It's a good read until they start talling about pets - grab a coffee and enjoy)

http://www.thegrumble.com/ubb/ultimateb ... 7;t=005067

[norymags]

John, You think she is a bit of a entrepeneur who has been caught signing a picture twice and then cutting it in two.

Yes I think she has been caught at it too, I also think that if it wasn`t for the mount replacment she may have gotten away with it

There seems to be a carte blanche out there to allow artists to...well get away with it..and hope they can while away an explanation, perhaps she could come to the forum and give her opinion, after all that`s what we like doing ...Norrie