Chief Executive’s Statement

Over the years I have often stated the importance of a good sponsor and how much we value our continuing relationship with ING. Twelve months after the world was shaken by events in global banking that signalled the start of the current recession, this relationship is even more valued. ING's financial support enables us to mount the annual ING Discerning Eye Exhibition and therefore has a direct impact on the livelihoods of the artists whose work we will enjoy and hopefully purchase.

Another crucial aspect of any exhibition for artists is the award of prizes. Prizes not only help an artist sell more work, but in time can help them establish higher prices; crucial if an artist is to become a full time professional.

Discerning Eye has since the very first exhibition given prizes: cash prizes, such as the Meynell Fenton Prize donated very generously each year by Brenda Fenton; materials, to help reduce the artist's costs; or something non financial (but nevertheless just as significant) - a club membership (for example the Arts Club prize, awarded in 2007 and 2008) or perhaps a solo exhibition.

However, in recent years the purchase prize, given by an individual or company who actually acquires the work, has substantially expanded the awards on offer at the Discerning Eye annual exhibition. Of further benefit to an artist winning a purchase prize, Discerning Eye does not deduct its standard sales commission. This approach benefits everybody. The prize giver acquires a work, whilst the artist receives the full value of the prize and has a useful acknowledgement to add to his CV. The value of the £5,000 ING Purchase Prize is even further augmented as the winner also knows that their work will form part of one of the major corporate collections in the world.

This year, I am pleased to announce a new purchase prize to be given by our exhibition organisers, Parker Harris, who will award a purchase prize of up to £1,000 for print, to celebrate Parker Harris' twenty one years in partnership. I would like to thank them not only on behalf of the winning artist but also on behalf of the Discerning Eye for their continued enthusiasm and contribution to our efforts.

In addition, our chairman John Penrose, who has created a Discerning Eye room at his new Dollar Street Gallery in Cirencester, has agreed to show all 2009 prize winning works for a further three weeks after the London exhibition, where we hope those artists will be introduced to a new audience and perhaps new buyers.

Finally, I would like to welcome Gerlach Jacobs to his first ING Discerning Eye exhibition as CEO, ING Wholesale Banking UK and Middle East and to thank him and ING for their continued support. We hope that you, your staff and clients enjoy this year's exhibition.

Tony Humphreys
October 2009

Foreword – Anita Klein

Original prints vs reproductions

The word "print" covers a lot of things these days. The Tate sells "Cezanne prints", the Sunday supplements offer "signed Picasso prints" for £100, and at the other end of the spectrum, artists paint on a shiny surface and take a unique print by pressing paper into their painting. Most printing techniques were first invented for mass reproduction of words and images, but each new technique has very quickly attracted artists to experiment, not only in order to make extra copies of an image, but because of the particular quality of mark making that can be achieved. Ever since the first prints there have been reproductions, copies of paintings or drawings made to disseminate and sell. However, with the invention of photography, reproductions became both easier to make, and more faithful to the original. In the last ten years in particular, computer technology has enabled artists to make very good quality photographic reproductions of paintings and drawings that are sometimes hard to distinguish from the original.

I have no problem with reproductions. I would rather have a Picasso poster on my wall than a bad original print. However, as an artist who makes prints I would like to explain why artists' original prints are so different (and superior) to reproductions. The distinction is simple; Artist's original prints are conceived as prints from the outset. They are not photographic reproductions of artwork that pre-exists in some other medium. There is no "original" apart from the marks made on a block, plate, computer, stone screen etc. by the artist. Unfortunately many painters do not understand this distinction and are lured by companies offering to make "prints" of their paintings. The truth is that one cannot make a print "of a painting", only a reproduction.

These reproductions, which are actually just good quality posters, are often signed and numbered as if they were original prints, and some (see the Sunday newspaper supplements) are offered as "signed limited edition prints" when even the signature is photographically reproduced. Signing and numbering prints is a relatively new convention. Rembrandt didn't do it, and the lack of edition number or signature does not make an original print any less original. However buyers like to know how many prints there are in an edition, that the edition is limited, and in our celebrity culture a signature tends to add value, be it to a catalogue, a book or a picture. Reproductions are often published in limited editions. To my mind this is pretentious. I print 25 of each of my drypoint etchings. Each time I take a print the metal is worn away a bit and after 25 I consider that the image has faded too much from my intention. The edition is therefore limited to 25. Not all original print techniques are self limiting like this, yet there is a convention that when a whole edition has been printed the plate, screen or block is destroyed or defaced in some way to prevent extra copies being printed. With a reproduction, unless the original painting or drawing is destroyed, a limited edition is a nonsense piece of marketing. But why, you might ask, does this matter if I like a reproduction and an artist has signed it?

I think it helps to consider why artists make "real" prints. When an artist makes a picture, he or she has at his or her disposal a number of ways of making a mark. These include pencil, charcoal, many types of paint and sizes of brush. Each medium can be used in many varied ways to communicate the symbols and signals of touching, feeling, stroking, grasping, remembering and being moved by our subject matter, be it abstract or figurative. If these methods of mark-making can be seen as the language of art, then printmaking is a way of greatly extending our vocabulary. There are feelings that can be expressed better by a delicate lithographic wash or a bold woodblock impression than in any other way. Each printmaking technique offers the artist its own new range of marks. I include digital printmaking here. Computer technology, like screenprinting and lithography before it, offers ease of reproduction. However this does not mean that these techniques can only be used to make reproductions. Each technique has its own range of mark-making possibilities, offering an extension of an artist's vocabulary. An artist can choose to work with a mouse on a computer screen, an oily crayon on a litho stone or power tools on a block of wood. He or she can choose a sharp engraving needle or scissors to cut a stencil, to dab ink onto a metal plate or use a roller to spread it. A piece of lino can be cut with a gouge or eaten away slowly with caustic soda. The artist can also choose to work with a "master printer", someone whose technical expertise in making original prints enables the artist to explore even more mark-making possibilities. All these are ways of making original prints. Each one of these techniques has been chosen by the artist as ways of best communicating visually.

Compare this with an artist who does a painting he likes and wants to be able to sell more than one copy. He takes a photograph and has a poster made. This enables buyers to enjoy something of his original painting for less money. As I said, I have no problem with this. However the artist originally chose a medium for his painting, say watercolour or oil on canvas. However faithful the reproduction, the medium has changed. It is not as the artist originally intended. The size is probably different. Almost certainly the texture is different. If you like the image and it goes with your sofa, then buy it and enjoy it. However it will always be the same as an image cut out of a book when compared to an original print which is a work of art in its own right, on a par with a painting, drawing or sculpture.

Anita Klein PPRE