Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:43:56 -0700
I may stand corrected on modern printmaking practices regarding signatures.
My collecting was done mostly in early 20th Century American work where
this was a common practice. In lithography, this system eventually evolved
into the atelier system. But it is my understanding that at ateliers like
ULAE, Tamarind (under Grossman) and Gemini, the artist worked shoulder to
shoulder with the printmaker. This is at least how I saw it being done at
Gemini 20+ years ago. Rauschenberg was doing the Hoarfrost Series and he
was there then and was apparently there supervising throughout the edition.
This is not done typically with alt-photo editions.
As for the placement of signatures, I was just using the left and right
hand side of the print as a model. My prints are signed in verso and this
would of course apply here. Signatures on the verso would not be visually
annoying.
I would expect that those who print for others may have some misgivings
about this system. As has been pointed out, the normal tendency of the
buying public may be to regard work printed by others as not as
"authentic." I do feel that images I make and print myself are in fact
more authentic than if I had someone else print them for me. In fact it
would sound strange if I heard an artist say that they felt that prints
made of their images by someone else were in fact more "authentic" than
ones they made themselves. If so, I would be forced to conclude that said
artist had little respect for their own printmaking skills.
I think a good argument for this would be the final chapter of Carl Weese's
and my book, The New Platinum Print. This is available at
http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/newbook/Page_thumbs.htm
Click on the each of the two images at "summing it all up" In this chapter
Carl goes through his thinking about how each image should be printed. I
think it is clear that only a person as skilled as Carl in the printmaking
variations possible could tune his prints to that degree.
This all of course leads us into the seedy underworld of art economics. How
much difference in price would one guess that a Moonrise printed by Ansel
would bring on the market versus one printed by Sexton. I really don't
know, but I suspect ones printed by Adams would bring more at auction.
I am proud of the fact that I print my own images. I don't want to
denigrate those who don't, but damn, I'd like a little respect for having
printed my own. We can do that just by revising the old imp. designation
and just initialing our prints that way. It is just a way of saying I
printed it and I don't see anything wrong with that. Everyone else can keep
doing it the way they want.
--Dick Sullivan
At 02:02 PM 2/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
>As a master printer working in the "printmaking world" for the last 10 years,
>I know of no printers who sign the work they have printed for another artist.
>This may have been a common practice at one time, but it is not in the
>contemporary print world. The printer is usually given credit in the
>documentation, and sometimes (but certainly not always) the printer's personal
>blindstamp, or "chop", is added next to the chop of the publisher or workshop
>where the piece was printed. There are no hard and fast rules, however. In
>fact, some artists I have worked with don't want a chop on their prints, let
>alone a signature on the front, since this can be visually annoying,
>particularly on a small print. What I usually do in that case is to have the
>artist sign on the back and I use a rubber stamp of my chop which I stamp in
>archival ink on the back of the print.
>
>I do collaborative print projects and editioning for artists in my studio
>(including photogravure!) and I have found that the public is generally
>clueless about the division of labor in printmaking and that there is
>suspicion about the authenticity of an artwork when the fact that an artist
>did not do the entire thing themselves is revealed. I think this is baggage
>left over from the Abstract Expressionist notion that truth and authenticity
>in art comes only from a mark made directly by the artist's hand. I do my part
>to educate people to the fact that through history, artists like DaVinci and
>Michaelangelo had workshops full of assistants who would help make the
>"master's" work. This is certainly true today, from the painter who employs
>assistants to a sculpture foundry producing various artist's work in multiples
>to photographers who use a printer's services. (on related tangent, I have
>found that there is also widespread confusion among the public about the
>numbering of prints in an edition. i.e. that number one of an edition was the
>first print pulled and that it is therefore somehow better than number 10 or
>20.)
>
>I disagree with the modest proposal. I certainly like to get credit as the
>printer where credit is due, but in general I think the fewer signatures on an
>artwork the better. We may be awesome printers whithout whom the artist is
>nothing, but let's not let our egos get in the way. I like the idea of a chop
>mark, but I think chops should be small and visually unobtrusive. I know chops
>are common among printmakers, but do photographers use 'em?
>There is a company in NYC that makes blindstamps: Samuel H. Moss
>(212)239-6677.
>Jonathan Higgins
>Galamander Press
>
>In a message dated 99-02-22 12:09:02 EST, you write:
>
><< nition 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."
>
>
> 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 >>
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