The Observer’s Misguided Print Market Clickbait
The Observer’s June 4, 2025 headline—How Gen Z and Prints Are Reshaping the Art Market’s Future—reads more like a press release than a thoughtful, objective guide for aspiring print collectors. For newcomers navigating the complex world of limited edition prints, this article is more misleading than helpful.
Encouraging novice collectors to buy prints by Picasso, Rembrandt, Goya, Dürer, Warhol and Hockney is not only reckless—it’s irresponsible. Acquiring original, collectible prints by these artists is never a simple task, especially in 2025. The supply is tight, prices are high and identifying authentic impressions from reproductions and 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.
Collectors who want meaningful art collections should always buy the book before buying any print or for that matter, any work of art.
A sound foundation in printmaking techniques, market dynamics and artist-specific nuances can prevent costly mistakes.
The article glosses over a harsh reality: if a novice collector were to follow the shared advice, there’s a strong chance they will purchase a worthless reproduction or posthumous edition; in other words, non-collectible works with minimal market value. Curiously, Ms. Gibbs recommends buying from a select group of dealers—yet none of the dealers listed in her article inventory prints by the six artists she champions. This egregious omission further undermines the article’s 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 are driving 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 an published edition of fewer than 50 impressions is not inherently more valuable than a 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 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 appreciation impediments.
 |
| Kevin Czopek/BFA.com |
Most troubling, however, is the 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 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.
Comments