Ström (strom_photo@usa.net)
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:48:48 -0400 (EDT)
Jeffrey, thank you for taking time to comment.
Some photographers last century used to mark the back of their prints "COPY OF
PHOTOGRAPH", meaning of course print copy of a negative.
>From a technical point of view, I think that considering the negative to be
the photograph and the print being an expression of it emphasizes the
importance of making negatives that can be expressed effectively (according to
your own interests and values) and later re-expressed later in new ways after
experience and changes occur in the artist. It is not the work of art itself
(other than very large color transparencies).
>From an esthetic and artistic point of view, the print is the photograph and
the one everyone values. Even the artist/printer might have a very difficult
time recreating the same result using the same negative, and in that respect
the print holds its place as "the photograph" and the negative is the road to
it.
I destroy "photographs" (negs and prints) occasionally, although it isn't the
advice I give to students. I do it to make room for better work.
Ström
--- "Jeffrey D. Mathias" <jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> =?UNKNOWN?Q?Str=F6m?= (known as Ström) wrote:
> >
> > The negative is the orignal--not the print.
>
> To me the photographer's seeing is the original, and
> the print the
> product. The negative is only part of the route in
> getting there.
>
> > ...
> > The photograph is far more important than any
> collector.
>
> Do we know what is more valuable: a human life or a
> significant
> contribution of someone's life
> ???????????????????????????
>
> > 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.
>
> Me thinks you have an impossible task of arguing
> this point. I have
> already declared that the print is my photograph
> while the negative,
> like the camera, is a tool to get there. I do
> concede that there are
> some whose end product IS the negative. At times I
> will even edit
> (destroying prints and negatives) and move on.
> Although some are
> preserved for research purposes.
>
> > ...
> > Keep your negatives until you die.
>
> Why???
>
> > 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.
> ...
>
> This does seem to be a viable technique. In fact,
> similar to what I
> do. Since I value the ability to continuously
> enguage in new ideas, I
> hasten to the point of "no one will buy it".
>
> A thought to ponder: How does selling one's work
> affect their work???
> Is one able to completely disassociate the creation
> of their work from
> the sale of their work especially if that is a
> substantial part of their
> income??? There seems to be a great deal of freedom
> in not selling
> anything. Just how do we go on??? Does one have
> more credibility; is
> their art more pure without sales??? Not easy
> questions to answer; not
> easy answers to live by.
>
> --
> Jeffrey D. Mathias
> http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
>
____________________________________________________________________
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 - 21:40:38