Gary Miller (gmphotos@earthlink.net)
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:46:19 -0800
Whether someone at an auction or a gallery knows that a print is substandard
or not does not concern me as much as if I know, and it is my print. My
work bears my name and I would not let a sub par print be made, mostly
because I care a lot about the quality of my work, not the fact whether
someone else will notice, or what the market says it is worth. I recently
saw a Weston exhibit in Monterey and the first thought through my mind when
I was looking at Edward Weston's photographs, was did he print them. I
would not want to own a print not made by the photographer. But that is me
and my value system, because I prize the making of the print so highly.
Just the same I would not want one of Carl's pieces, no matter how nice, if
he did not print it. Even if he made a master for someone else to copy.
DaVinci didn't draw the outlines of a piece and them have someone paint by
numbers, why should photographers be different.
GM
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Cc: alt-photo-process-error@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-error@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Re: A modest proposal -- the imp. signature
>
>
>On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Carl Weese wrote:
>> ... Even if a negative is technically perfect and is to
>> be printed in silver, printing is a feedback process for
>> photographer/printmakers who uses it that way. I have to print my own
>> negatives--even though they are quite consistent--because I can't
>> possibly tell someone else how I'd want them printed. I have to see it
>> to know what I want, and the really subtle interpretations are the most
>> important ones.
>
>My paradigm is the photographer one way or another making the prototype
>print themselves, with or without an assistant, then giving the data AND
>the sample print (paper, exposure type & range, toning, whatever, already
>chosen) to the printer for an edition.
>
>You're talking about print quality anyway. That wasn't the original
>argument, which was *market value.* Since when are the two related?
>David Vestal, for instance, says his more recent prints are lots better
>than his early ones. But what his dealer gets big bucks for are the
>"vintage prints," usually made when ANY photographer is too harried &
>inexperienced, overwhelmed & distracted to make the *best* possible print
>of any given negative.
>
>A whole mythology, hagiology if you will, has grown up around the "vintage
>print," purely a marketing construct, with a VERY flimsy rationale. I
>think the "made by" wants to be another. Do you think, Carl, that when
>your prints are auctioned at Sotheby anyone gives a damn (or knows diddly)
>about print QUALITY? Well, maybe they'd notice a crimp in factory paper &
>knock off 25% for that. But otherwise? Anything YOU would fuss about? The
>fact that *not* is frequently stated. I myself am not a judge -- nor have
>I ever been to an auction, I hasten to add.
>
>This list expresses feelings and desires, values and priorities of the
>photographers taking part. It may even, or often, express an "ideal"
>(though not always mine). But it is not necessarily a picture of the real
>world as she is ... for better or worse.
>
>Judy
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:53