Veloposters.com - Cover your Bare walls

[MattTuck]

Some stylistic prints inspired by cycling. I did a search and didn't find this site, so hopefully it is not a repeat. The prints are limited edition, and I actually see a 7-Eleven print that is sold out, that would have been pretty sweet.

Veloposters

[tiretrax]

Those are nice looking. Maybe a little pricey, but very cool.

[benb]

They sure are nice.. but too expensive. I don't need one of an edition of 25 if I'm going to hang it in my garage with my bike stuff, which is where I'd want to put it. Figure cost well over $100 by the time you've framed it nicely enough to do justice to a $50 print.

Giclee is actually the pretentious art word for "Inkjet".

It has a really funny French meaning that's almost a joke on a customer.

I can make A3+ "Giclee" prints like those at home. They cost me less than $5 per print.

[mhespenheide]

I've sold landscape photography in galleries, so while I'm not a designer/illustrator, I have some sympathy for the artist here.

While I agree that the word "giclee" is ridiculous and can seem like intentional obfuscation on the part of the artist, it is an accepted term in the art world. Likewise, limited editions don't really make sense when you're printing from an inkjet printer rather than a set of plates, but that's what's accepted common practice among galleries.

It's not about materials costs. It's about the time and expertise that the artist put in to be able to make the original work in the first place. We don't begrudge Dario or Richard Sachs their margins. Can you make the physical print cheaply? Sure. Now spend ten to forty hours creating the illustration that you're printing and then tell me if a $50 print is a better value.

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by benb

They sure are nice.. but too expensive. I don't need one of an edition of 25 if I'm going to hang it in my garage with my bike stuff, which is where I'd want to put it. Figure cost well over $100 by the time you've framed it nicely enough to do justice to a $50 print.

Giclee is actually the pretentious art word for "Inkjet".

It has a really funny French meaning that's almost a joke on a customer.

I can make A3+ "Giclee" prints like those at home. They cost me less than $5 per print.

Agree that $50 is a lot, though, not outrageous. It's at the upper end of what I'd consider for a graphic that is, as you say, inkjet printed onto paper.

They claim they fit into Ikea frames (which retail for $20), so maybe not too bad if you figure all in cost. My experience with framing art is that it is expensive, I spent upwards of $500 for a japanese woodblock print and the required high end framing. If the piece is handmade, good framing is important, I think. Less so for this type of 'art'

If these were $20, I'd pick up 3 or 4 of them, and string a wire under tension across the wall, and use some sort of clamp to attach them to the wire.

If you're going to frame them, I'd go with the suggested Ikea frames. $20 with a Matte.

These arefine art, I've been informed. But, unlikely to sell at auction and make you rich.

[Aaron O]

Love!

[CaliFly]

I dig these. Art is art = completely subjective.

[1centaur]

There are some specialized inkjet (more like paint jet) printers that do some giclees worth thousands of dollars, so it's a broad term.

[Tony T]

$5,000 for a bike frame — "seems reasonable"
$50 for a nice poster — "no fu%^*in way!"

[Saxon]

I like this one.

[cdn_bacon]

for sharing those posters and that site.

Im a fan of the art.

[cderalow]

i prefer the 100copies.net artwork personally.

though they're even more expensive than veloposters.

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

These aren't fine art, that's for sure.

In the gallery world, "fine art" only means that it wasn't originally intended for commercial (i.e., advertising) or editorial (i.e., news reporting) use. Pretty much everything else is "fine art". A two-year-old's finger painting is "fine art".

The quality may not be that of an old master like Rembrandt, but unless someone like Rapha commissioned these first, and then he's selling them later, they are indeed fine art.

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by cderalow

i prefer the 100copies.net artwork personally.

though they're even more expensive than veloposters.

They have some interesting prints too; not sure how I feel about this one

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

In the gallery world, "fine art" only means that it wasn't originally intended for commercial (i.e., advertising) or editorial (i.e., news reporting) use. Pretty much everything else is "fine art". A two-year-old's finger painting is "fine art".

The quality may not be that of an old master like Rembrandt, but unless someone like Rapha commissioned these first, and then he's selling them later, they are indeed fine art.

I'm getting an education on art terminology in this thread. Good to know. I used the term to mean, that they were not hand painted or going to be mistaken for something on display at the Boston MFA.

[Aaron O]

That target poster ticks me off at first glance, but we all know we can be annoying to traffic. I understand why some folks find my traffic/hobby choices annoying, and if shooting at a target makes them feel better, it doesn't really affect me that much. I find the ones of political figures with targets on them more scary.

Originally Posted by MattTuck

They have some interesting prints too; not sure how I feel about this one





I'm getting an education on art terminology in this thread. Good to know. I used the term to mean, that they were not hand painted or going to be mistaken for something on display at the Boston MFA.