Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:52:08 -0700
A.D. Coleman wrote an essay a few years back where he divided photographers
up into to classes: imagemakers and printmakers. As alt folks we clearly
fall into the latter category -- and we are clearly in the minority.
Jeff makes some good points. From having watched the threads on this list
for many years now, it is clear that for most folks the process of making
the image is certainly bound up in the creative process. Sometimes I
previsualize and shoot with a final image in mind, but at other times the
process itself was the driving factor. For instance on my web site I have
some van dykes I did in the mid 70's. At that time managed to get some 9
inch aerial film in 500 foot roles for $35.00. It was all I could afford at
the time. As you can see from the prints, that limitation was built into
the images themselves but it became part of the creative process itself as
well. I doubt these prints could have been made by anyone else but myself.
Also remember, I don't propose that if the imagemaker is the same as the
printmaker that two full signatures be used on the print. If they are the
same the imp. is just the initials. Thus my prints would be signed Richard
Sullivan and rss imp. Just the initials as two full signatures would be a
little much.
And as Jeff reminds us money enters into the factor. The big sellers are
often folks who don't make their own prints. I suspect most galleries
aren't going to be too keen on this idea. As were reminded a few messages
ago, the buying public doesn't have too much of a clue as to the mechanics
of the art market and how prints get made. There is money to be made
maintaining the fiction that all the big shots make their own prints. Money
ranks supreme.
--Dick Sullivan
At 12:31 AM 2/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Just what is the purpose of printing a photograph anyway? Is it to make
>a buck? Is it to show off? Is it to prove something? Is it to be
>creative?
>
>I can and will most likely never understand how someone can create a
>message, deliver it intact, and expect it to represent their original
>thinking when someone else is involved with the production.
>
>Certainly there are some fantastic collaborative works, even
>masterpieces. However it seems that when the work becomes a production,
>cranked out by apprentices or hired printers, or hyped, it's a sham, a
>scam, and a disservice to those who honestly should be heard (or seen).
>
>I think Richard's proposal (signing by all parties) is a good one.
>Let's know who the collaborators are. Lets us also take up arms against
>those who rip us off.
>
>--
>Jeffrey D. Mathias
>http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
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