[Alt-photo] Re: Editioning of Alternative process prints

[Suzanne Steel]

Hi Peter,

I think the answer to your question is really up to the individual artist. My reasons were 1. Hand painted emulsion brush strokes, and 2. Hand painted embellishment, which would use different colors, and different areas of where paint is applied.

I also made a decision to not make giclees at all from any of the works I set apart to sell as originals. I may make new negatives with some of the same elements used in my original compositions, for any giclees or multiple prints of any image. But it will be a new composition and a new treatment. This helps to maintain value for buyers of my originals and keeps me from having to keep track of editions. The waters do get pretty murky in this digital age where reproduction is so easy and cheap. I've done a lot of research on how other artists handle this and have concluded that the amount of effort involved in tracking editions is not worth it anymore.

But it's nevertheless a great conversation to continue, to explore the nuances and learn how different artists handle it.

Suzanne

On May 7, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Peter Friedrichsen wrote:

Hi Suzanne,

Thanks so much for the useful feedback.

I reviewed your interesting work on your site and it does make sense to me that each one would be considered original. Your overpainting would certainly move the final work of art further from the  original image. I guess the question remains however, as to what degree of manipulation is reasonable in order for a print to be considered original vs editioned. Is it the color scheme, additional overlayers, size, type of paper, variations in brush marks of an emulsion etc...

Peter Friedrichsen

At 03:58 PM 06/05/2013, you wrote:
> Hello Peter,
> 
> Yes I went through exactly the same questions and conundrums last year when preparing to exhibit a new set of cyanotypes in a local gallery. I considered using the EV convention, but decided against it. I decided that every image will be an original because I overpaint each print with watercolors and metallic pigments. Instead of using LE or EV, I went with providing a certificate of authenticity for each print, which clearly states that one negative might produce multiple prints, but that each is a unique original, and gave the reasons why. I also included a photo of the print itself on the certificate.
> 
> You can see the set of images here;
> http://www.hotsteeldesign.com/danceart/cyanotypes/index.html
> 
> Hope that helps,
> Suzanne Steel
> 
> 
> On May 6, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Peter Friedrichsen wrote:
> 
> Just wondering if there is a convention for editioning of alt prints?
> 
> There must be some differences in how this is approached because prints made from the same negative(s) are going vary from one to the next due to all the variables that we can only control to some degree in a hand-made process.
> 
> I have seen references to the use of "Edition Variee" to emphasize that a series of prints may vary in appearance from one to the next.
> 
> Anyone care to comment on what they think may be the most appropriate form?
> 
> Peter Friedrichsen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | lists.altphotolist.org/mailman/listinfo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | lists.altphotolist.org/mailman/listinfo

_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | lists.altphotolist.org/mailman/listinfo