These poorly written rules remain "on the books" due to complacency and occasionally, because some festivals still regard reproductions like the family's gray-muzzled Chihuahua – a well-behaved pet they fear might yet go for Grandpa's throat.

Unfortunately, these rules are too often simply borrowed whole from another festival's prospectus and incorporated without further thought.

When rules are written from scratch – even with the best of intentions – the resulting wording often places needless restrictions on painters with reproductions or creates unforeseen conflicts with the rules of other festivals. Some rules may reflect an unstated ambivalence about allowing two-dimensional reproductions but, in most cases, the wording is driven by concerns over possible misrepresentation and concerns about booths appearing overly commercial.

Many artists have individually spoken with or written to festival committees about these conflicts and inconsistencies, but the inertia of existing rules is strong. Even so, it may help to review why reproductions are a desirable part of today's art festivals.

 2. Allowing reproductions benefits many art festivals. Try as they might, many festivals simply cannot attract a sufficient number of patrons willing or able to purchase more expensive two-dimensional one-of-a-kind originals. Allowing painters and other creators of two-dimensional one-of-a-kind originals to offer reproductions attracts artists who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford to exhibit in those festivals.

3. Allowing reproductions benefits festival patrons. Many art festival patrons simply cannot afford an original painting no matter how much they like an artist's work – a reproduction may be the only way, for the moment, that they can own and enjoy an example of their favorite artist's imagery. For other patrons, price isn't the issue – they can easily afford original paintings but may prefer to purchase an image that can be enjoyed in a second home without concern for its security when they return to a primary residence elsewhere.

Some rules are motivated by concerns that two-dimensional reproductions might be confused with or misrepresented as original artwork or as original prints such as photographs, etchings or serigraphs.

The reality is that deliberate misrepresentation is rare and is the exception rather than the rule.  Some confusion is probably inevitable, but most artists with two-dimensional reproductions go to great lengths to inform the public and, in fact, the public generally understands what two-dimensional reproductions are.  More often, when confusion arises, it involves the public's attempt to grasp the nuances of esoteric and often unfamiliar concepts such as "multiple originals" and "original prints."  This, of course, is an issue best addressed by education rather than by unnecessarily restricting artists who wish to offer two-dimensional reproductions.

 2.  Educate the public (via unbiased informational articles in festival programs) by briefly describing the most common techniques used to produce multiple images ranging from traditional printmaking and photography to offset lithographs and giclées. Consult with painters and other creators of two-dimensional one-of-a-kind originals to ensure that the commentary is even-handed and clearly distinguishes between reproductions and multiple original mediums without subtly or overtly denigrating reproductions (as is too often the case).

Here, festivals have a dilemma.  On one hand they'd like to present a cultural experience on a par with those of better galleries or museums; on the other hand, it costs money to put on a festival and that cost is borne in part by artists through booth fees.  And, it costs artists to exhibit.  As a result, all artists and craftspeople need to recoup not only booth fees, but also travel expenses, meals and a reasonable income for themselves and for their families.  This means making their "10x10" as productive as possible.  For their part, festivals need to balance this economic reality with the need to maintain a sense of decorum and discourage booths from looking overly commercial.

With that in mind, here are a few ill-advised "appearance" rules that are commonly applied to artists with two-dimensional reproductions and some suggestions for fairer alternatives:

Vague restrictions
Rules with wording such as "reproductions may not overwhelm the booth" are non-specific and subjective.  What one committee member considers "well-stocked," another may consider "overwhelming."

Vague wording provides no defined standard that can be used to determine compliance.  It also assumes that only artists with reproductions can "overwhelm" their booths with inventory.  But a cursory trip around any art festival will reveal numerous artists in other mediums whose booths have expanded in every direction like a bad 3-D movie.

In attempting to answer that question, festivals committees should consider two factors – the economics of producing a reproduction and how limits set by one festival may conflict with those of other festivals.

Consider a typical rule that limits reproductions to 20 percent of the work displayed.  Sounds straightforward, but what's wrong with this concept?

For one thing, percentage rules require math skills. If you have 37 originals, how many reproductions can you display?  Simply divide 37 by 8 and multiply the result by 2!  The answer is 9.25 reproductions.  (Total work exhibited = 46.25 pieces which breaks down to 80% originals or 37 pieces and 20% reproductions or 9.25 pieces)  Simple, isn't it?  But what happens when the artist sells two originals?  Not exactly rocket science, but percentages involve more math than most artists and committee members want to cope with on a busy festival weekend.

Percentage limitations also unnecessarily restrict an artist's ability to offer a reasonable selection of reproductions.  A selection of 9.25 reproductions is preferable to none but, while opinions vary widely, many artists and patrons would argue that a selection of even 20 reproductions is minimal.

In the example just given, however, an artist would need 80, (yes, that's 80!) original paintings on display in order to exhibit only 20 reproductions.  Most painters would be delighted if they could consistently bring even 40 originals to every festival.  In fact, as the season winds on, painters frequently fall significantly below that number, a situation that does not represent laziness, but merely the labor-intensive nature of painting and the inescapable dilemma of attempting to fit too many demands into a limited amount of time while still making ends meet.

Overly restrictive percentage rules also penalize artists who can only produce a limited number of original works each year due to the size, complexity or technical demands of their paintings.  In many cases, these are the same high-quality artists festivals most want to attract.  For those artists, percentage rules amount to a de facto "originals only" policy.

Restrictions on framed reproductions
By prohibiting framed reproductions, festivals are presumably attempting to distinguish between originals (always framed?) and reproductions (never framed?).  In the end, however, this prohibition says only that frames are bad – at least when they surround reproductions.

Prohibiting painters and other creators of two-dimensional one-of-a-kind originals from offering framed reproductions accomplishes little and hurts a festival's patrons by limiting their choices and forcing them to take an otherwise affordable reproduction to a local framer for an often startling case of "sticker shock."

Prohibiting framed reproductions also denies an artist the additional income he or she might have earned by being able to sell a framed reproduction for a higher price than unframed an reproduction by itself.  As such, this is a marketing restriction not applied to any other medium.

If the intent of framing restrictions is to segregate framed reproductions from originals, this can be accomplished easily by requiring that framed reproductions be properly labeled and hung in one designated area of the booth (on one wall, for example).

In the end, restrictions on framing reproductions are arbitrary and punitive because they are imposed on no other medium. The fact that an original artwork or a reproduction is displayed in a frame has no bearing on its worthiness. With proper labeling and disclosure, there is no likelihood of confusing framed reproductions with framed original art and therefore no legitimate basis for this type of restriction.

Browse Boxes
Some festivals only allow reproductions to be displayed in browse bins and, in some cases, even limit this to a single browse bin or go so far as to specify the maximum size of that browse bin.

Restricting reproductions to browse bins may be an indirect means of limiting the display of reproductions but, whatever the motivation, rules of this type are especially difficult to justify or understand – particularly in light of the totally unrestricted number and sizes of browse bins typically employed by other competing two-dimensional mediums.  Booths that present an overly commercial appearance do so regardless of the specific medium displayed.

Restricting the number or size of browse bins for reproductions is arbitrary and punitive because no similar restrictions are imposed on any other medium.  Among other justifications, multiple browse bins are necessary and desirable in order to separate original artworks and reproductions.  Furthermore, the interior design of a booth and its appurtenances should be left to exhibiting artists because as professional artists, they are the most qualified to determine how best to display their own artworks and to design a layout that assures the most efficient traffic flow through their booth space.  The only basis on which festival committees should intervene is when there are legitimate questions of public safety, offensive materials or issues of compliance with local regulations and, even then, any such intervention should apply to all exhibitors equally regardless of medium.

Print tents
A few festivals have sought to "quarantine" two-dimensional reproductions by separating them from the main show in "print" tents.  It should be obvious that, once again, this practice singles out painting and related mediums for restrictions that are not  imposed on any other medium.  Print tents only exacerbate the competitive inequity between painters, photographers and printmakers, all of whom compete for the same two-dimensional sales at art festivals.

There are a host of other practical reasons why "print" tents are a bad idea.  For example:

"Print" tents mean that committees must find additional volunteers, preferably with money-handling skills and at least a minimal ability to handle sales. Print tents add a whole new layer of complexity to show management including arranging for delivery of (and accounting for) prints from forty or more artists in a typical 200 booth festival.  Committees must log in each item in some manner, account for it as either sold or returned to the artist and eventually handle payment to the artist. If, for example, each participating artist had ten different reproductions that were to be offered both framed and unframed (20 items), it would mean that for 40 painters and related mediums, a committee might be faced with attempting to stock, log in and sell or return a minimum of 800 individual items.  If artists were allowed to submit "backup" stock to replace any items sold, a reasonable stock might consist of 5 of each reproduction or as many as 4,000 items for the committee to be responsible for.

Committee members staffing a "print" tent would need to be knowledgeable about editions sizes and reproductive processes (offset litho's, giclées and such) as well as terminology.  They'd also need to be able to answer questions about archival issues such as whether a reproduction was printed on acid-free paper, whether the mats were acid-free and why that information might or might not be significant to the purchaser.  Most such questions could be answered quickly and easily by the artists who created the reproductions, but it would be impractical to ask prospective purchasers to shuttle between the "print" tent and the artist's booth to get the answers they wanted or needed and it would be a daunting task to compile and disseminate this information to committee members/volunteers manning the "print" tent.

A multitude of other questions and complexities also arise such as how to handle charge sales, exchanges, returns, merchant fees on charge sales, shipping, damaged goods, out of stock items, etc…

Volunteers and artists would need to stay longer at the end of the festival to complete return of unsold items (or forego the possibility of sales on the last afternoon).  Reproductions returned to artists at the end of the festival would need to be inspected for damage (broken glass, chipped or dented frames or unframed reproductions bent or otherwise damaged by customers or volunteers).  If artwork was damaged while in the custody of the committee, arrangements would have to be made to compensate the artist.

Artists would have to decide how to assure themselves that the "print" tent had an adequate supply of their images throughout the weekend and that their items were reasonably well displayed.

On the sales side, unfortunately, no one knows or sells an artist's work like the artist him or herself.  Will a volunteer sell one artist's work that they don't relate to as well as the work of another artist that they find more appealing?  Will volunteers know how to show prospective buyers how to group several pieces from one artist if asked?  Will they even have the staff or time to do so if they know how in the first place? What happens when the "print" tent runs out of a particular item?  Will volunteers simply forget about selling that item or will they have to contact the artist to leave his or her booth to bring new stock? How large will the "print" tent be?  Will there be sufficient area to display the reproductions of all artists as well as they could be displayed in their individual booths (highly unlikely!)?

Finally, when shows that adopt the "print" tent concept realize how much extra staff is required to do any kind of job for artists with reproductions, how long will it be before a % commission is imposed on those sales?  And, when a fee is levied, committees will have, once again, singled out one medium for inequitable treatment by forcing artists with two-dimensional reproductions to sell their artwork in this contrived manner and penalizing them still further for the privilege by imposing a cost penalty not applied to any other medium.