To me, prints are simply a subset of wall art. I'd rather call them wall decor, as art implies something more important and original. You can frame prints and use them anywhere as decor.

You can use both however, be careful where you place a framed print because sometimes the glare of the glass distracts from what's under the glass

For large pieces, I like the appearance of a canvas. None of my are original, they are mass-produced but effective in the spaces.

I have quite a few antique bird prints. Far from tacky and they blend in very nicely with my oil paintings. I have art. not wall decor.

There are so many different things called "prints." You can get original, signed & numbered artist prints, or you can get a poster. There's a huge range. Some prints definitely fit into the fine art category: if you've got a signed & numbered Picasso, few would argue that you've got "wall decor."

You're correct, Carrie B. Original signed and numbered prints are a far cry from posters.

I guess we need to know what you think is the difference . When I read this at first I thought you were asking murals versus hanging art. BTW “art” IMO is bought becuase you love it and not becuase it goes with your decor and prints are more to go with the decor if that helps .

Prints, lithographs, serigraphs, giclees ... there are a number of different types of original reproductions, none of which are objectionable if you love the work. There are collector's posters as well, so never write anything off simply because it is not an original work of art. There is room for all of it, so long as it sings to you.

Technically, a print is any piece of art that can be reproduced on a printer or silk screen. Even major artists do limited, signed prints of their work that can be quite valuable.

Pick anything that you love and can afford. Plenty of homes have both original art and printed art, even in the same room.

I'd stay away, however, from prints that are trendy or have words/phrases on them. Nothing screams Target like a "live, love, laugh" poster or similar. ;-)

Not to further confuse the issue, but some artists use printmaking techniques (silkscreen, etc) in a way that creates one-of-a-kind art (I have a unique piece by printmaker Linda Yoshizawa in my dining room).

I have lots of original art and a lot of prints, and I don't really use them differently or view them differently from a decorative standpoint. It's original art vs. reproduced art.

I don't have a lot of mass-market prints (like the giclee print canvases you can get at Target or World Market) anymore. There's not anything wrong with those, if they are what are in your budget and you like them. If they reproduce a famous piece of art (say, Monet's water lilies), then obviously people will know it is a print, which may or may not matter to you.

I have a ton of wood-block prints that I bought over the years at a local studio. They aren't limited edition, but they aren't mass produced either--somebody rolled the ink on the wood block and stamped it. But the artist could go back and make unlimited numbers of these, which matters to me not a lick.

I just got this lovely lady back from the framer. She is a limited edition print from a rubber stamp. I had her framed with anti-reflective museum glass (see Beverly's comment above).

You can help keep the arts alive by buying original art, some at the same price you would pay for a print or copy, etc.

Ok . thanks for all the opinions and for clarifying. I was looking for something to go above my console and a few things I really liked were simple prints but the abstract colors really seemed pleasing to my eyes. I will post a picture today.