Marc Chagall Bouquet de Fleurs Lithograph Poster

The sheet is thick, approx. 24 3/4" x 29 3/4 but appears to be a little trimmed to fit the frame ( what 's wrong with these people doing that?)
Trying to figure what year was that art expo in NY and what A.D.L. stands for. Maybe Anti-Defamation League?
Do you think it is considered original lithograph?

 

Do you think it is considered original lithograph?
No. You said so in your title. "Lithograph Poster"

Printing terms can be confusing, and certain terms are abused. The Artist's lithos (Stone Lithography) are made on a stone, a slab of limestone that is ground smooth then marked with a crayon or wax. The stone is made wet to resist ink. It was the first process developed where the artist could actually paint right onto the print block rather than carve or etch into it.

This process was adapted at the turn of the century to mechanical methods, photo-mechanical methods and machine printing methods using metal plates. Some of these types of printing were called Lithography, because the image was not carved or etched on, but used a similar resist method. Some of these methods have little or no similarity to lithography, but were called that because it sells more printed material. You often see 'litho' or 'lithograph' printed in the name on some early 3 color mechanically printed products.

Unless you are an expert in the field of commercial printing the slight changes and developments in the machine processes will escape you. Grouping all of those printing processes under the heading of "lithography" has always seemed very deceptive to me because the quality can vary wildly and the different processes can have little to do with each other besides using paper and some kind of ink.

A lot of dealers, and antiquers like to call any kind of large format poster or calendar print a "lithograph" when in fact an accurate designation might be more like "printed on a 1980s era, Phillips 400 series XKZ Custom Color Match Pro, or some such title for a commercial printer which has nothing to do with lithography.

Calling these types of prints 'lithography' is hype. It is just wrong and deceitful. If the idea is to distinguish it as a 'quality' poster print like you buy in a Museum shop, as apposed to a centerfold you tear out of a teen magazine, it is more honest to say, "Quality print on heavy paper", rather then try to come up with some fancy terminology that doesn't fit the piece.

Please folks, just get it out of your head: a poster print, a calendar print, ect. should not be called a lithograph, especially if the image on the poster is known to have been made by an artist who actually made stone lithos.

Calling a pigs ear a silk purse doesn't make it one.

You have a cut down Museum Poster of a Chagall. That's it. In a decent mat and frame it could be a pretty and decorative wall art. As is, it's a hard sell for a buck at a garage sale. If it wasn't cut down, if you held onto it for another 40 years in pristine condition, it might be worth something. And those are big ifs.

 

oops

 

Hi. Thanks for your answer.
What about the term offset lithograph and how can you tell them from the fully photocopied ones? Better quality?
I also see ' original offset lithograph poster'. What is that supposed to mean? Like, the artist was involved in the design of the poster which was specifically created, let's say for an art exhibition, and differes from his other works?
Actually, the featured print comes with a frame and glass, which was the reason why it was cut down. How stupid is that. Unless, the customer wanted a specific size and did not care if the poster will be trimmed, a good frame should know not to do that.

 

Marc Chagill did do lithographs for the April 1982 NY Art Expo. I found one of his lithographs titled "Statue of Liberty" done for that Expo. The description for it is:

" 'Statue of Liberty' is an original offset lithograph by Marc Chagall, created for Art Expo NY at the New York Coliseum, April 1982.
This poster measures 35” x 22”, with an image size of 23.5” x 16.25”.

This stunning piece is an original poster by Chagall, not a reproduction. Original posters have become highly sought-after by collectors of contemporary prints and fine artworks. From an edition of an unknown number.
Unsigned and not numbered. Very good condition, with signs of handling or age. Limited quantity; comes with a certificate of authenticity. Ships rolled."

If you google Chagall Statue of Liberty you will no doubt spot it. The version I spotted was being sold by nytstore. Nowwww I have no idea whether yours is an original lithograph or just a reproduction poster.

--- Susan

 

Hi,
Thanks. I actually know about the statue of liberty one but surprisingly I cannot find from what year at the Artexpo Ny is mine. Apparently, there were more than one exhibition at the expo featuring Chagall's art but how many and when is unclear to me. Still curious about the A.D.L.

 

Like you said, I bet it could stand for the Anti-Defamation League because Marc Chagall was given a visa to escape France by a member of the U.S. diplomatic service back when. Chagall was able to escape the Holocaust. That diplomatic (Hiriam Bingham) was honored posthumously by the ADL in 2006 for "defied orders and granted more than 2500 American visas to Jews and other refugees during the Holocaust, was honored posthumously by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) with its Courage to Care Award, which recognizes rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust."

"Hiram Bingham was a member of the U.S. diplomatic service and was posted to Marseilles, France as American Vice-Consul in 1939. In defiance of explicit directives, Bingham granted over 2,500 American visas to Jews and other refugees, including Marc Chagall and Max Ernst, as well as the family of writer Thomas Mann."
http://archive.adl.org/presrele/holna_52/4920_52.html#.U7bA27GGeSo

--- Susan

 

Could very well be, Susan. I sure don't know. I queried Highly/GMP and he didn't know either.

 

I emailed the 2015 Art Expo website and got a reply from the current CEO that they have no idea of the poster. I was hoping they would have some kind of archives. Wonder if the poster was the official cover of the event or maybe A.D.L. had a booth and was selling this and maybe other Jewish related prints.

 

Here's what Highly thought:
Probably from the 1987 Art Expo NYC. Those posters came and went quickly. It's often near impossible to find info online.

Could even be the Anti Defamation League. Chagall would fit. (I think the fact that Highly and Susan came up with Anti Def. League, it seems likely.)

 

Off Set Printing is a photo-mechanical process that uses a metal (usually aluminum) plate. These were the types presses used by "Quick Print" print shops that stood in every neighbourhood and town before kinkos and xerox printing took over.

God only know what it is suppose to mean other than, "this is an ordinary print but we want you to believe it is special." That type of print has nothing to do with the artist.

Not stupid at all. The print is basically worthless, the frame was worth more. The print, when nicely framed, might have a value. Personally, I prefer when these types of prints have the museum information cut away, but others like to keep it. That depends on your decorative taste. And if someone has an affinity for the Museum or Sponcer (like the ADL).

This is not a collectible print. Never was. Like I tried to say, if you hang on to it for 40 years, there is a slim chance that instead of being worth less than $1, it gains in value to $5 in today's money. But I wouldn't bet on it. I would have kept it in the frame.

 

Thanks for the repy. You are probably right about the poster being with very little to any collectible value. But pricing of $1 seems kind of interesting. Do you think it was originally sold 20 years ago for a dime?

 

"original offset lithograph poster" is technically an oxymoron. A photo offset lithograph is by its nature a reproduction. However in this case the NY Times refers to the fact that Chagall made the art exclusively for this poster. A trifle weaselly, but narrowly within the bounds of accepted usage.

Kardinalisimo's poster might have had a small premium value as a collectible. However only in original, undamaged form. Cut down it is rendered effectively worthless.

 

Hi,
What NY Times your are talking about? Is there an article?

 

I am not sure if you are being humorous or asking a rhetorical question based on logic or frustration. I'll answer as if it is the first. Plenty of things fluctuate in price, a new dress is out of season, last weeks Sunday paper lines the bird cage. The $20 poster you bought at that fabulous Museum show on Chagall 20 years ago that you never got around to framing -you can't even get rid of it at your garage sale for a $1. Not everything becomes collectible, some things are best suited to line bird cages.

 

It was more of a humorous but I also wonder how do you come up with those prices.
I see your point. The poster is not collectible. Although, collectible is a relative term. A piece is sought among collectors today, tomorrow is not or vice versa. Or something that you find not be collectible or is not in the books could be of a interest for someone else. Who knows, some may collect dirty underwear. Plus, the price matters as well. Not everyone can afford to pay for an original Chagall or other famous artist art even for a Paris printed poster.
Also, your examples of the Sunday paper and the dress are subjective. You know better, that a newspaper can turn to be a collectible piece. Or indeed can be used to line the bird cage. Same with the dress, even out of fashion it could be precious, depending on the maker, who it belonged to etc.
Anyway, I think the topic is pretty much over.

 

Btw, the prices I came up with were hypothetical, I didn't mean it to be accurate. If I worked for a fine print shop that made museum posters, like this one, and they had overstock of interesting posters, I'd hoard cases of them in a dry basement for 20 years if I could buy them for the price of the paper. The problem with these posters is that anybody can reproduce them at anytime, including the original museum that issued them. Their interest is usually at the point of purchase.

Also, there are several print-on-demand poster companies out there with huge inventories of images where I can get a freshly printed poster from them on new paper (the original museum, if any, might make 50¢ per poster they print and consider it free money). Why wouldn't I buy a new clean poster, rather than a faded old one? unless it was framed.

 

Well, to some collectors it matters if the poster is from the original edition or a later reproduction as well as the publisher and the printer like let's say Mourlot.
Just to clarify something. There is such thing as 'original lithographic poster'. Chagall used to create such for different events,
original arworks. With or without signature, numbered or not, some editions without the text. There was also another type of original posters - stone lithographs after Chagall works, done by Charles Sorlier.
As to the one I have. Apparently, it is not original lithograph as the image is an old work of his. The publisher info is missing so how can we now it was not a stone lithograph? I am not saying it is but you are ignoring a lot of important facts. What IF it was specially ordered by ADL and done from stone? Just hypothetically.

 

I did not know there were collectors of Museum posters from the 1980s, but I suppose there is a collectable for everybody. I can't image there are too many collectors of Museum posters from the 1980s.

Yes, I thanked (liked) Alec Sutton, above, for providing that information. And I agree when he states using such a title for a poster print is "A trifle weaselly, but narrowly within the bounds of accepted usage." when that poster print is of a lithograph specifically designed for that poster.

Seriously? The first thing you do is get acquainted with printing processes. Take an extension class, read a book, go to a museum print room and ask to examine the prints, google stone litho, etc. After all that, if you can't tell the difference between an artist's stone lithograph and a post print then you are in the wrong business.

I am not ignoring any facts. I am trying to help. You seem to be tying to shoot the messenger.

First of all ADL didn't order stone lithos to sell to tourists in their gift shop, they ordered poster prints, nor can I imagine Chagall pumping out the thousands of prints by hand necessary to meet such a demand.

If you want to find out the value of Chagall stone lithographs, in case you ever run into one at a thrift shop, please check out an Art Info Service, there are many like artist-prices.mutualart.com, artnet.com, etc.

And I don't know the value of a hypothetical 'Poster print of an original lithograph' originally sold in a museum shop in 1985, but if I had one, I could take it to the hypothetical poster print convention and sell it to the only other hypothetical attendee for a hypothetical fin.

 

I am not trying to shoot the messenger just to understand everything you are saying.
You keep repeating the poster was sold in a Museum shop, which one? ADL gift shop, was there such place, where? Print from 1985, is that a random year you choose or you known the exact issue year.
ADL did not order stone lithos, is that a fact? I am not even sure the posters were ordered by them. And how do you know how many of them were issued.
You are not seeing Chagall pumping thousand of lithos? Maybe not original lithos but I told you that Charles Sorlier did a buch of them. Some of them in over 8-9 thousand examples.
So, acorrding to you an Alec such stone lithos are not collectible. That is ridiculous. Maybe not from the 80's, but the 70's one are sold pretty expensive.
I am not in a business selling just original lithos and other fine art. Maybe I cannot tell the difference between stone litho and a poster but hope after such discussions to learn something.