Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:21:32 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Bob Kiss wrote:
> I feel certain that, except for those on Mount Olympus, none of us will be
> around to make any more prints OF OUR OWN NEGATIVES! These are the vintage
> prints. If a museum or anyone else makes many new prints, they only serve
> to INCREASE THE FAME AND VALUE OF THE ORIGINAL, VINTAGE, LIMITED EDITION
> PRINTS made, signed, and numbered, by the hand of the original
> photographer! They do not dilute the value of the originals...they ENHANCE
> it. This has been proven repeatedly. And the negatives are still there for
> historical, educational, and cultural research.
>
> CHEERS!
> BOB KISS>
Bob speaks truth here, but I'd like to take it one step further. In my
observation -- and opinion -- "limited edition" as a concept is not only
counterproductive, it's an insult to photography, based on the premise
that you just bat out a print like a xerox machine, so scarcity must be
artificially supplied.
In other words, more prints supposedly means less value for each. In fact
the opposite seems true. Moonrise et al are only *iconic* because they're
all over the place. One single print of Ansel Adams's "Sunrise over South
Bend" isn't even a pixel on the art radar screen. Thus the Moonrise would
be worth more than the Sunrise even if Sunrise were "better" art or print
quality.
Plus of course that those maps of dodging and burning we've seen for
prints by Adams/Weston & company, show that even "mechanical" printing is
highly skilled work.
Not to mention that we're entering a period when digital scanning &
printing could start with an original print and make a negative that would
print an "original" of near-equal quality. So "cancelling" or destroying
the negative becomes even more clearly a marketing *gesture* of not
world-shaking significance.
My top-of-the-head generalisation is that what makes work valuable is the
renown of the photographer THROUGH BOOKS, not through limiting the number
of prints. For instance, we're told that Adams was just another calendar
photographer until he acquired a promoter AND TURNED OUT THOSE BOOKS.
The limited edition print in other words is a device to promote unknowns
by dealers, but is not to the advantage of the photographer. When the
photographer gets powerful enough, s/he finds ways to expand the edition.
Don't ask how many "artists' proofs" exist of this one and that one, for
instance.
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 - 21:40:37