Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:01:50 -0700
In the world of printmaking such lithography, etching, etc, there is
recognition for the work of the printer as well as the artist making the plate.
This is recognized by having the printer sign the print with the abbreviation
of "imp." following the signature. Thus a George Bellows lithograph might be
signed George Bellows on the left and Bolton Brown imp. on the right. The imp.
stands for "impress."
This system has never been adopted in the photography field to my knowledge. I
suspect for various reasons:
* In it's early period, it wasn't "art."
* No one was printing anyone else's work.
* A print is a print is a print, so why bother.
* Etc.
I think that in the alt-photo field there out to be some recognition of the
person making the print. However there could be some turnabout from the world
of print making. George Bellows thought that having his prints pulled by Bolton
Brown added value to the images. I have on more than a few occasions attended
openings of photographers who with puffed up chests were explaining the
intricacies (mostly wrong) of their making of the platinum prints to the
assembled masses when I knew the prints were made by another person.
In the formal sense in the printmaking world if the print is not signed with an
imp. one assumes that the print was pulled by the artist. Since this is not the
case in photography, I think that if the print were made by the artist it
should be signed on the left with the full name and on the right with the
artist's initials followed by imp. This would eliminate the garish duplication
of two full signatures. If the print were made by another printmaker, then the
artist name would be signed on the left and the full name of the printmaker and
the imp. on the right.
I suspect that many who are having their prints made for them, would opt to
continue the fiction that they made the prints themselves and not have any
impress signature on the right. They are probably wrong. My system does,
however allow those of us making our own prints to get some recognition for it.
I respect the art of making the print as much as the art of making the image
and believe this would put credit where credit is due. I also think that
collectors would appreciate the knowledge of who made what. A Moonrise by
Sexton might be valued differently than a Moonrise by Ross.
Opinions?
Naw... no one has opinions around these parts.
--Dick Sullivan
505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
<http://www.bostick-sullivan.com>http://www.bostick-sullivan.com
http://www.workingpictures.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:53