Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:44:44 -0800
Another suggestion, below; Guild as collection supervisor.
As the former Fort Ord closed, I tried to get one of the Air Raid bunkers
for fine art storage.
One point of the business plan was to ship and collect on all items
inventoried.
With items 'catalogued' by the guild, collection and taking a modest 6% like
what Price Waterhouse collects from movie folks; and dispersing it which
would sustain the Guild in itself.
Which brings to mind, The Guild through Price Waterhouse. Essays and
registration 'rectobelia' be contained on CD.
Steve Shapiro
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Sullivan <richsul@earthlink.net>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: A modest proposal -- the imp. signature
>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