Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:52:35 -0800
>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
>
>
Oh, I have an opinion on that! It stinks!!!
Recently, I got up to make a presentation of a single photograph, one copy
verticle and the other horizontal, that's two prints.
Before me, was another photographer, whose prints are supberb. This time,
his color work was done by scans, mounted on black board by yet another set
of hands; and addmitable manipulated into a realm of interpretation by the
printer. Not the photographer's interpretation, but acceptable to the
photographer by his admission.
It stinks!!!
In a group of photographers, what is shown should be what they printed.
Fewer and fewer photographers who print their own work are participating.
I write on the (left from the viewer's perspective) the number of prints,
fraction line, and the number of this edition; and when I do it again, I
write the fraction with a decimal to show it's the number of the edition.
On the right, I sign it.
I agree, if you have a lab doyour work, even with or without your
supervision; you should mount or hav it mounted wih the fraction and name of
the lab.imp.
Good policy.
Let's get some Usi's and police the shows, galleries, acutions and museums.
Count me in.
S. Shapiro
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:53