Ström (strom_photo@usa.net)
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:51:30 -0400 (EDT)
The negative is the orignal--not the print.
I personally find this entire subject repugnant. Photographers who are
artists who attempt to appeal to the value collectors are truly stupid.
The photograph is far more important than any collector.
No negative that is valued by a photographer should ever be destroyed. The
negative is the photograph--not the print--no matter what technique was used
to create the print.
Don't ever give in to the stupid gallery owners, who are not interested in
artists in the least. They are only interested in their own gain!
Keep your negatives until you die.
If you want to limit your prints, here's the technique:
For every print you create, you increase the price for the subsequent print by
a percentage. It might be 2% or more. Eventually, no one will buy it,
because it's too expensive. That is its rarity. Not that you have set an
arbitrary number of prints with the final destruction of the negative. Foo.
Besides--for alternative processes, each print is original.
Ström
Richard Sullivan <richsul@earthlink.net> wrote:
> At 01:24 PM 7/22/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >DEAR RICHARD,
> > Yes, I know that New York requires galleries
> to give a disclosure
> >statement (or did in 1993 when I moved out) with
> each print sale.
> >PLEASE NEVER DESTROY NEGATIVES: They are historical
> documents and many will
> >be of social and cultural significance that we
> cannot imagine. It won't hurt
> >having around those which are not significant as a
> price to pay to preserve
> >those that are but only posterity can judge...not
> us... so keep them safe.
>
>
> Interesting, I like to know what they are required
> to say. California, to
> the Robert Scull auction, passed a law making the
> artist a partner in
> future sales. Anyone ever heard of an artist ever
> getting anything?
>
>
> Are negatives anymore of an historical document than
> say the plates etchers
> print from? Etchers are obliged to cancel their
> plates when the edition is
> complete. They do this by drilling wholes or
> scratching them into un
> usability. With the new digital age upon us, mere
> scratching the neg may
> not be sufficient. In fact for the most part,
> etchings and engravings and
> the like, even if steel-faced, are more limited in
> their potential output
> than negatives are. (Not being an etcher, I take it
> on faith, that the
> common assumption is that steel-facing also degrades
> the print quality.)
>
> Restrikes were common in the print world, and which
> edition the print came
> from is very important in terms of price. A 1st
> edition Goya Los Caprichios
> print may go for many thousands of dollars where a
> 6th edition of the same
> image may go for only hundreds. Luckily for print
> collectors, in order to
> get more editions, reworking of the plate was
> necessary, and so one can
> tell which edition they are from by small hairline
> details in the print.
> Photographs can be nearly identical from print to
> print.
>
> Around the mid-19th Century printmakers started
> cancelling their plates. I
> have seen it said that there was some serious
> hanky-panky going on with
> plates and editions that was hurting the market so
> the practice was adopted
> by the better printmakers to protect the value of
> their work. It appears
> that some dealers displayed the cancelled plate to
> assure the buyers that
> there would be no more prints made. How anyone new
> that 2000 weren't pulled
> before the plate was cancelled, I don't know.
>
> The major print dealers association a few years ago
> put a moratorium on the
> sale of Dali prints due to the flagrant abuses that
> were going on. Even
> Dali, when alive, participated by pre-signing paper
> that the prints were
> to be made on. I understand there are Dali prints
> with the signature
> running through the plate mark. Of course Dali's
> prices have plummeted.
>
> I don't have much of a qualm with negs going into
> storage, etc. The
> argument is more academic. The real issue is in the
> editioning of prints
> and how that is being done.
>
> As a final thought, we can be sure that there will
> not be any surreptitious
> Brett Westons made from the original negative
> appearing soon. He may have
> been a lot more savvy than folks give him credit
> for.
>
> --Dick
>
>
>
> > There is a standard procedure for all of this.
> The negative(s) are
> >retired to a vault for 100 years, I believe as a
> lawyers escrow arrangement
> >(Not certain of this part) when the edition is
> finished.
> >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
>
>
>
> 505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
> <http://www.bostick-sullivan.com>http://www.bostick-sullivan.com
> http://www.workingpictures.com
>
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37