Is it reasonable to think a monoprint would sell for the same amount of pencil/ink piece? Why Not? Understandably We OA collectors are instinctively inclined to make a direct comparison of the price between original pencil/ink vs an original monoprint. It may seem like the correct approach, but I find it unfair, as they both exist in different art mediums. This is one of the cases were technology has reinvented the art scene. Sort of the same way photography did a century ago. Many believed that photography could not be art, because it was made by a machine rather than by human creativity. We see it different now, and we do not compare the value of a painting vs the value a photograph. If you like it, and it if doesn’t exist in any other form…well then, the monoprint is your only option. How much are you willing to pay is up to you.
As for proof? It will be the same as any photographer approved photo-prints. Photos come in a number of editions and sizes reflected in a COA, which is approved and signed by the photographer. In this cases the COA it’s what determines provenance and if it is original, and not a reproduction. The mono-print comes with a COA as well indicating that is 1 of 1 original print signed by the artist. Is that enough proof? Again, that’s up to the individual collector to decide. Make no mistake (about it), at the end of the day you are paying for provenance in the form of COA. And it seems some collectors have already come to terms with this.