Monoprint

A monoprint is a one-of-a-kind print produced through a printmaking process — pulled from a matrix or surface that can in principle be reused, but where each impression is uniquely manipulated and no two are alike. The closely related monotype is also one-of-a-kind, but made from an unmarked surface that holds no repeatable image at all. Both produce unique works rather than editioned multiples, which separates them structurally from every other major printmaking technique.

Why Monoprints Matter in a Studio Practice

The monoprint occupies a position no other print technique does. A screenprint edition produces fifty impressions that share an identity. An etching edition produces seventy-five impressions of one image with measured wear across the run. A lithograph edition produces one hundred impressions from one matrix, each meant to match the BAT. A monoprint produces one print. The next pull, if there is one, is a different work.

This changes nearly everything about how the work operates in the market. A monoprint is not "a print" in the sense the secondary market usually means — it's a unique work of art on paper made through printmaking means, structurally closer to a small painting or a unique work on paper than to a limited edition etching. The pricing reflects this. A monotype by an established artist often runs in the same range as a small drawing or gouache from the same period, not in the print-edition range. The documentation reflects it too: each monoprint gets its own [artwork record] with its own title, not a number within an edition.

For artists who make monoprints, the structural fact most often misunderstood — by buyers, sometimes by the artists themselves — is that calling the work "a print" without qualifier creates the wrong market frame. The serious buyer hearing "print" expects an edition, expects a number, expects a process where the artist's hand is one degree removed from the final object. A monotype is the opposite: each impression carries the artist's direct manipulation in a way that even hand-pulled editions don't. Selling it as a print at print-edition prices undersells the work; selling it as a unique work on paper, at unique-work prices, is what the medium actually deserves.

Monoprint vs. Monotype

The distinction between monoprint and monotype is the single most contested terminology issue in this medium, and the references handle it inconsistently enough that an artist reading three sources will likely come away confused. The convention that has settled across most contemporary print shops, museum collections, and the Monotype Guild of New England is the one to use.

A monotype is a unique print made from an unmarked, non-repeatable surface — typically a sheet of glass, Plexiglas, or a gelatin plate. The artist paints, draws, or applies ink directly to the smooth surface, lays a sheet of paper on top, and pulls the image through a press or by hand. Once the image is transferred, it no longer exists on the matrix; the surface is wiped clean for the next work. There is no repeatable image. There is no matrix to which the artist can return.

A monoprint is a unique print made from a repeatable matrix — an etching plate, a lithograph stone, a carved woodblock, a screen — but where each impression is uniquely manipulated. The artist may ink the plate differently each time, hand-paint into the image after pulling, run a different paper through, add a second plate to one impression and not another, or otherwise vary the print so no two are identical. The underlying matrix could in principle be reused, but the specific variations make each impression a one-of-one.

The practical difference: a monotype has no repeatable identity at all. A monoprint shares some structural element (the underlying plate, the woodblock's lines, the screen's stencil) across impressions, but each impression is independently treated. Both are unique works. Both should be documented and priced as unique works. The distinction matters less for the buyer than for the cataloging — a monoprint catalog entry typically notes the underlying matrix process ("monoprint with etched ground" or "monoprint from carved woodblock with hand-coloring"); a monotype catalog entry doesn't, because there is no underlying matrix process to name.

Many artists and shops use "monoprint" loosely to cover both, and the looseness is forgivable in casual conversation. In documentation — the certificate, the catalog, the bill of sale — the precise term should appear.

How a Monotype Is Made

The process is the most painterly of all printmaking techniques, and the most direct.

A non-porous surface is prepared — glass, Plexiglas, a polished metal plate, a gelatin sheet, or a Mylar film. The surface needs to be smooth, easy to clean, and able to release the ink or paint cleanly under pressure.

The image is applied directly to the surface using oil-based ink, lithographic ink, or — increasingly common in contemporary practice — slow-drying acrylics formulated for monotype work. The artist works the surface like a painting: brushing, drawing, scraping, wiping back, layering. There is no separation between drawing-on-the-matrix and inking-the-matrix as there is in lithograph; the painting on the surface is the ink that will print.

The paper is dampened (for oil-based work) or used dry (for some acrylic processes) and laid carefully over the painted surface. Repositioning the paper after contact destroys the image, so the placement is committed.

The image is transferred by pressure — either through a printing press (etching presses are commonly used for monotype work, though the pressure is calibrated lower than for etching), by hand-rubbing with the palm or a wooden spoon, or by rolling with a brayer. The paper picks up the ink from the surface in a single transfer.

The print is pulled and set aside to dry. The surface, now wiped of nearly all its ink, can be cleaned and repainted for the next image — but the image just made cannot be remade. The variability of pressure, ink density, and the slight differences in transfer across the paper give each monotype its particular character; even attempting to duplicate the same composition on the wiped surface produces a different print.

The ghost print is a phenomenon specific to this medium. After a monotype is pulled, residual ink remains on the surface — often enough to pull a second, much fainter impression on a fresh sheet. This second pull is the "ghost." Some artists treat ghosts as finished works in their own right, often working back into them with additional paint or ink to bring up the image. Others discard them. A ghost print should be documented as such; selling a ghost as if it were a primary monotype misrepresents the work's relationship to the original pull.

How a Monoprint Is Made

The monoprint adds a repeatable element to the otherwise unique monotype process. The artist begins with a matrix that carries some structural feature — an etched plate with a specific image, a carved woodblock, a screen with a stencil, a lithograph stone with a drawn image — and uses that matrix as a foundation for each unique impression rather than as a multiplication device.

The variations that make each impression a one-of-one can come from several sources. Differential inking — applying different colors to different zones of the same plate, wiping back differently on each impression, leaving more or less plate tone — produces dramatically different prints from the same matrix. Hand-painting after the pull — adding watercolor, gouache, oil pastel, or additional ink to the printed image — gives each impression a unique surface. Layered matrices — pulling impressions through multiple stages with different plates or stencils, varying the combinations across the run — yields a series where the underlying structure shares but the final prints differ. Chine collé — laminating colored or textured papers into the print during pulling — adds material variation. Stop-out and selective masking — covering parts of the matrix for some impressions and not others — produces prints where the same plate yields entirely different compositions.

The matrix in a monoprint is usually documented and named in the catalog entry, because the process matters to the market. "Monoprint from etched copperplate with chine collé and hand-painting" is more accurate, and more valuable to a serious buyer, than "monoprint."

Suites and Series

Many monotypes and monoprints are produced in suites — coherent groups of unique works that share a subject, formal approach, or matrix base, made within a focused working period. Edgar Degas, the artist most often cited as the modern monotype's originator, made suites of brothel monotypes, ballet monotypes, and landscape monotypes. Edvard Munch worked in monotype suites. Jasper Johns, Tracey Emin, and many contemporary artists have produced monotype and monoprint suites that hang together as a body of work.

A suite is not an edition. The works in a suite are each unique; they share thematic or structural identity rather than the kind of impression-to-impression matching that defines an edition. The convention in cataloging a suite is to give each work in the suite its own title (often a sub-title within a series — "Bathers (No. 7)"), its own [artwork record], and its own price. The suite is described as a collection of related works, not as a numbered edition of multiples.

This matters for buyers and for the market. A collector acquiring a single work from a suite is acquiring a unique work that participates in a larger conversation, not one impression of fifty. A museum acquiring multiple works from a suite is building a focused holding on a body of work, not collecting redundant copies. The pricing for individual works in a suite is set per work, based on each one's particular qualities, rather than at a single edition price.

How Monoprints and Monotypes Should Be Documented

The documentation departs from editioned print conventions in several specific ways.

Each work gets its own title. Editioned prints often share a title across the edition ("Plate IV, edition of 50"). Monotypes and monoprints each have an individual title — the variation between impressions is the work's whole point, and titling each one separately reflects that. Suite titles are acceptable as a parent label ("Bathers" series), but each work within the suite carries its own designation ("Bathers, No. 7", "Bathers, No. 12").

Each work gets its own inventory number. Not "1/1" or "1 of 1" within an edition — just a unique studio inventory number, the same way a unique drawing or small painting would be recorded.

The medium description should specify both the printmaking process and the variation source. "Monotype on Rives BFK paper" is enough for a true monotype. "Monoprint from etched copperplate with hand-coloring in watercolor on Hahnemühle Bütten" is the level of specificity a monoprint with multiple elements deserves.

The ghost prints should be noted if any were pulled. If a ghost from a monotype was kept and is being sold, the catalog entry should say so — "ghost of Original Title" or "second pull of Original Title, worked into with gouache." Selling a ghost without disclosure as if it were the primary monotype is misrepresentation.

The signature convention differs from editioned prints. Editioned prints carry a fraction (15/50) in the lower margin. Monoprints and monotypes don't — there's nothing to fraction. Some artists sign and date with no edition designation; others write "monotype" or "unique" in the lower margin to make the one-of-one status explicit. The latter is recommended; the fraction-shaped space below the image otherwise looks like a missing edition number, which can confuse buyers expecting print conventions.

Pricing and Market Position

The market position of monotypes and monoprints sits between editioned prints and unique works on paper. Their pricing reflects this, and the artists who handle it well treat the work as closer to the unique-works-on-paper side of the spectrum than to the print side.

A monotype by an established artist typically prices at a small fraction of their unique paintings but at multiples of their editioned prints. Degas's late-career monotypes sell at auction in the same general range as his small pastels and works on paper, not in his print range. For working artists, the practical guide is to look at where small unique works on paper from your own practice price — a small gouache, a finished drawing, a watercolor — and price monotypes in that range, adjusted for the particular qualities of the work.

The error to avoid is pricing monotypes as if they were editioned prints. A monotype priced at the same level as a numbered impression from a hundred-print edition signals — to advisors, dealers, and serious collectors — that the artist doesn't understand what the medium is. The market reads pricing as positioning, and pricing a unique work at edition prices positions it incorrectly.

The opposite error is treating each monotype as if it were a painting and pricing at painting levels. Some artists do this with mixed results. The convention that holds up better is to price as unique works on paper, which is honest to the medium and reads correctly in catalog entries.

Common Mistakes Artists Make with Monoprints and Monotypes

Calling each impression "1 of 1" is the most common mistake, and it reads as confused. A monotype is not an "edition of one." It is a unique work. The fraction designation 1/1 imports edition conventions onto a medium where they don't belong, and senior reviewers spot the confusion immediately. The correct designation is to mark the work "monotype" or "unique" in the lower margin and leave the fraction position empty.

Selling ghosts without disclosure is the second. A ghost print is a real and valid second pull from a residual-ink surface, but it is not the same object as the primary monotype. Catalog entries should note ghost status explicitly. Buyers who acquire what they believe is the primary impression and later learn they bought the ghost feel deceived, and the relationship rarely recovers.

Conflating monoprint with edition variant is the third. An artist who pulls fifty impressions from one plate, varying each one slightly, has not made fifty monoprints — they have made an edition with significant impression-to-impression variation. The monoprint designation belongs to small-run unique works where the variation is the whole point, not to large editions where slight differences happen incidentally. The honest description for variable editions is "edition with variations" or "variable edition," and the count should still be disclosed.

Pricing as editioned prints is the fourth, addressed above but worth repeating. A unique work that is mechanically reproducible only as a description, not as an impression, is closer to a painting than to a print and should be priced accordingly. Underpricing as edition multiples undercuts both the immediate sale and the artist's broader market position.

Treating the matrix as exhausted after a monoprint run is the fifth. A monoprint's matrix can be reused for editioned work if the artist later decides to produce an edition — but the prior monoprints should be documented and acknowledged. An artist who pulls ten monoprints from a plate, then later issues a "limited edition of fifty" from the same matrix, has produced sixty impressions from the same source; the documentation should reflect that the ten monoprints exist alongside the fifty editioned impressions, not pretend they don't.

Related Terms

  • Monotype
  • Edition Size
  • Ghost Print
  • Suite
  • Unique Work on Paper
  • Etching
  • Lithograph
  • Chine Collé
  • Artwork Record

Each monotype and monoprint is its own object, with its own title, record, and price. Inquire.art is built for that — every unique work catalogued individually, with the process, paper, suite designation, and ghost-print status captured in the record from the moment the work leaves the studio.