Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Wed, 21 Jul 1999 04:13:53 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Stephen Harrison wrote:
>
> I understand this point of view but I must secretly admit that if I were to
> spend a large amount of money on an image, I would like my investment
> somewhat preserved. I would like to believe if things got tight and
You can believe whatever you like, but the record shows that most art
never again fetches the price the first customer paid for it. This is
fairly well known .... though it's contrary to the "conventional wisdom"
about art appreciation. That's a myth fostered by the relatively few but
VERY well publicized cases of increase, often astronomical increase, in
value.
The exception to this rule is when the art is old enough to have some
vintage or antique value... unlikely in your life time.
And a comment about assigning value using the cost of the materials, among
other items. Bob, you left out the *labor* involved. I value my labor a
lot more than 10 drops of palladium/platinum. Once you've got the moves
down, you can bat out a pt/pd print practically like xerox, do an edition,
10 editions.
I never heard of an *edition* in gum printing, I would certainly never
attempt one. If you count cost of the materials, a gum print should be
practically free. But if you count the labor, well let's say the print has
5 coats -- it should sell for 5 times what the platinum print sells for.
More actually, because you could well ruin the print in any coat, making
your yield even smaller.
Judy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:36