Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:06:17 -0700
Jeff mathias makes two points:
>From your description you are a printmaker. Coleman and Chappell would both
agree. For the imagemaker the creative process pretty much ends when the
shutter fires. It sort of semantic sledgehamer to define it the way they
do. Obviously printmakers need and image to become printmakers. However, I
have observed a tendency for "printmakers" especially in organic processes
to not be too interested in the image itself. Having taught many gum
classes way back when, I had seen a tendency in many students to be so
intent on the process that the image used was of very little concern.
As for an organization. Lots of problems. The best model would be ASMP
which supports professional magazine (oops it's now "media") photogs. It is
successful because it has a membership with its economic fat in the fire.
Sorry Jeff, but money does make the world go round. As for fine arts
photography -- defined as those of us who make prints for sale as object in
and of themselves, 99% of us are amateurs (an honorable term). There are
probably fewer than 100 people earning a decent living selling prints
alone, if you ignore the academics who earn their living teachings or the
Leibowitz's who get a fat check from Vanity Fair each month.
I think the most viable organization would support the "professional" or
"semi-professional" fine arts photographer. An organization like this would
probably be at odds with most amateur concerns.
The first order of business, in my mind would be to "sanction" galleries.
As one might suspect, B+S is in the loop as far the alt-photo/photo gallery
scene goes. I can recall more than a dozen cases over the last 20 years
where galleries folded into the night with prints and all. Melody Bostick
last year retrieved several boxes of George Tice prints from a "into the
night" former gallery owner. It just so happened, in a conversation that
somebody knew somebody who knew somebody, that they knew the missing
gallery owners address, and the person was now in New Mexico. A Sunday
morning knock on the door, a surprised ex gallery owner, a letter from
George, all came together to retrieve the prints. We now own the Oak Tree
print -- Georges treat for her services.
Another case was where a platinum printer was in a town and decided to
visit a gallery where a friend was showing. When he got there the gallery
was closed and a van was being packed with prints. The quick minded friend
got on the cell phone, called his friend on the other side of the
continent, and was able to retrieve the prints. Other people in the gallery
never did see their prints, at least for a long time. How fast do galleries
pay off. There are constant disputes on matters of sales, etc. Some
galleries treat it as a privilage to carry a photographer's work.
Most gallery owners, especially the established photo galleries are
aboveboard in their dealings. Most of the cases I cited cases are upstart
galleries taking advantage of emerging photographers. I can see a need for
a professional organization. How this would interface with the vast
majority of folks who don't have gallery representation, I dunno.
--Dick Sullivan
At 11:06 AM 2/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Richard Sullivan wrote:
>> 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.
>> ...
>
>I have not read the essay by A.D. Coleman and so am not familiar with
>HIS definition of imagemakers and printmakers (please enlighten, if
>you're able). However concerning the traditional interpretation of
>imagemaker and printmaker, I most definitely consider myself an
>imagemaker.
>
>Clearly, at least to myself, what I am interested in is making
>(creating) an image. The printmaking is an essential part, as is the
>negative making, the photographing, the understanding and training, the
>curiosity and exploration, et cetera, et cetera. Sure, I don't do
>everything. I don't make my own film or paper. However, I do select
>them.
>
>As to printmaking, there is just no way an image could be called mine if
>it is not printed by me. Oh yes, I could stand as overlord and direct
>others to do my biding. But, I just would not be satisfied by that; the
>work would be missing some familiarity. As well, I would never have
>someone develop my film or set up my camera; it just wouldn't be my
>image. Well "you" think "you" can copy or imitate my work; well just
>"you" try it; "you" have no idea or understanding of the nuances
>involved; "you're" just not me.
>
>[NOTE: Anti-flame comment: The "you"s should obviously be interpreted
>as an example and fictitious persona. That's what the quotes are for.]
>
>Richard Sullivan wrote:
>> ... Having darkroom assistants "help" in the process is different than
>> sending stuff off to have it made. ...
>True, but it's also different than doing it yourself.
>
>Anyway, back to the imagemaking. I don't make prints, I create images.
>The printmaking is but a part of the process to get me there. However,
>the nuances of the printmaking are essential to the image; to me the
>image is just not there if not printed properly.
>
>
>I guess an issue for us (alt-photo folks) is how do we get the message
>out there, to the collectors, gallery owners, and museum staff. How do
>we let them know that our work has merit? How do we do this when they
>are preoccupied with the latest pop-con-artists? There is just too much
>cr-- out there. Perhaps a guild could direct interest more toward those
>who deserve it (and earned it)(individual or collaborative).
>
>How does the word get out? It is a travesty that what Judy indicates is
>true.
>Judy Seigel wrote:
>> ... Meanwhile, on the subject of *money*, in my experience a "collector" is
>> just as likely to be impressed that a photographer doesn't have to slave
>> her/himself doing the dirty work in the darkroom, but is hotshot enough to
>> have a team of experts to do it for him/her, while s/he spends the energy
>> getting inspiration and hanging out in trendy restaurants. ...
>
>I would like someone to just appreciate my work on its own merits. Ask
>yourself this question: Was the last piece of art you purchased because
>you liked it or because of who made it? The last piece I purchased for
>cash was a ceramic piece I liked at $140. I didn't know anything about
>who made it, I just liked it. It's interesting that the last piece I
>added to my collection was a photograph trade (sight unseen, pot luck).
>
>There is just too much activity in the art world interfering with art.
>At least when it comes to alt-photo art, I feel we can and should make a
>difference. We can educate the collector, the gallery owners, the
>museum curators. We can provide a forum for them to find information.
>We can create standards of credibility and authenticity. We've got a
>good network of folks on this list; let's do it.
>
>Shall a working group (small) be formed to put together a rough draft to
>go out to the list for modification and refinement? This could be done
>by E-mail with perhaps a meeting if appropriate. Perhaps a small list
>server could be set up for the working group. I would be interested.
>What say you?
>
>
>--
>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 - 10:06:54