How Gen Z and Prints Are Reshaping The Art Market Future: Clickbait or Press Release?

by Joseph K. Levene & Robert Grunder

On June 4, 2025, the Observer posted an article using a clickbait headline, "How Gen Z and Prints Are Reshaping the Art Market’s Future," which is more like a press release than a thoughtful, objective guide for aspiring print collectors. For newcomers navigating and buying original limited edition prints, the Observer's article is more misleading than helpful.

Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, Frank Stella and Jasper Johns Catalogue Raisonnés 

Encouraging novice art collectors to buy prints by Picasso, Rembrandt, Goya, Dürer, Warhol and Hockney is not only reckless, it’s irresponsible. Acquiring original, collectible prints by any one of these six esteemed artists is not a simple task, especially in 2025. The supply is tight, prices are high and most importantly, identifying and acquiring authentic impressions that are NOT reproductions and/or posthumous prints requires patience, expertise and, due diligence.

Buying collectible prints demands a trained eye, rigorous provenance checks and precise condition evaluation, none of which is explained in the article. Buying fine art is NOT like buying detergent. 

Collectors who want to collect art and/or assemble a meaningful art collection should always buy the book before buying any original print or, for that matter, any work of art. It also helps to look at a lot of art before you buy anything. Collecting fine art takes time, and too often, art buyers "buy with their ears, not their eyes" and end up buying the wrong artwork because they heard they should buy it or read somewhere they should buy it, but avoid doing their own due diligence. 

A sound foundation in printmaking techniques, market dynamics and artist-specific nuances can prevent costly mistakes when buying fine art.

Sadly, the Observer article glosses over a harsh reality: if a novice print collector were to follow the shared advice, there’s a strong chance they will most likely purchase a worthless reproduction or posthumous edition; in other words, a non-collectible work of art that is NOT original and has minimal or no market value. Curiously, Ms. Gibbs recommends buying prints from a select group of dealers—yet not a single one of the art dealers listed in her article has a sufficient selection of original print inventory by any of the six artists she champions. This egregious omission further undermines any credibility.

Even the market data presented is vague and superficial. While the author claims that 82% of IFPDA exhibitors exceeded sales expectations at the 2025 Armory Fair, up from 81%, we are left guessing which artists drive volume. No specific data is shared that shows gross market print sales or specifics supporting the surge in under $50K print purchases.

The author’s section on edition size is superficial and misleading. A print with a published edition of fewer than 50 impressions is not inherently more valuable than a limited print with an edition size of 75, 100, or even 200 impressions. That’s simply not true and there is no market evidence that supports this purported hypothesis. Edition size alone does NOT determine value. The artist, aesthetics, creation date, and quality of the impression along with condition are far more important. Novice collectors frequently make the mistake of buying the cheapest edition, only to learn the purchased work has major condition flaws that were overlooked and that their bargain purchase print is saddled with appreciation impediments.        

Kevin Czopek/BFA.com

More troubling, however, is the author's lack of transparency. The author, Jenny Gibbs, fails to disclose that she is the executive director of both the IFPDA and the IFPDA Foundation—despite heavily promoting the organization throughout the article. While Ms.Gibbs's biography includes her IFPDA association, the article avoids this disclosure. This is a clear conflict of interest. Quoting the IFPDA ethics code as a seal of approval is self-serving and does not replace independent expertise, critical evaluation, or market literacy.

Finally, the article tries to have it both ways—touting Gen Z’s emotional connection to art while simultaneously pushing $50,000 “investment-grade” prints. So, which is it? Emotional value or financial upside? This kind of contradiction confuses rather than educates.

A more responsible approach would be to arm print collectors with the tools they need: research, mentorship, and historical market awareness—not promoting a static list of blue-chip artists as a “safe” entry point for buying prints.