From: Brian Ellis (bellis@tampabay.rr.com)
Date: 05/27/00-08:21:00 AM Z
Hi Rod - What a terrific message. Thanks for posting it. One question
though: why must one never sign the overlay? I've always preferred that just
because I like to keep the writing as far out of the way of the image as
possible. I know that isn't the "standard" way but I've never had an
objection (then again I'm not selling to MOMA nor are people paying
thousands of dollars for my prints, unfortunately). Thanks again for a very
interesting and informative message. Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: Rod Fleming <rodfleming@sol.co.uk>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: a question...
> HI Garimo, this is long so sorry; if you don't like long posts, delete.
>
>
> The "conventional" approach is to sign and date the print at the bottom
> right hand corner, the title of the print centrally and the edition number
> (if appropriate) to the left.
>
> Adams signed the mountboard to which he had drymounted the board- he
> regarded this mounting as a permanent part of the finished artwork so
there
> was no chance of the signature becoming separated from the image itself.
He
> then overmatted in such a way as a border, showing the information, was
> visible all round the print.
>
> (Please note you should never sign and date the mat which overlays the
> mount.)
>
> Now there is an alternative view which holds that "photography is a branch
> of printmaking". Printmaking has very strict rules about editioning,
signing
> and dating of work, which essentially come from practise in France, a
> country famous for its love of codifying things.
>
> As a result some museums and galleries now stipulate that the signing and
> dating is done in accordance with these rules, which are, the edition
number
> bottom left, the title centre and the signature and date bottom right.
These
> must all be written in pencil on the paper that the actual print is made
on,
> outside the image area (NOT on the mount). There are many more rules
> regarding the keeping of records etc and I refer you to pp117-120 of The
Gum
> Bichromate Book for a very concise and accurate summary.
>
> However, this practise is flawed, because Photography is not a "branch of
> Printmaking", even though making prints is a very important part of
> photography. We do not suggest that the art of making marks by hand,
> Drawing, is a "branch of Printmaking", after all!
>
> Now, the principle of the limited edition comes from the fact that in fine
> art intaglio printmaking processes the plate itself is degraded by the
> action of inking and polishing and in particular by the enormous pressure
of
> the press. In the case of drypoint, one may only get 8-10 good prints
before
> this begins to show, 20 or so with etching on zinc more on copper, more
> again from engraving, but the effect is still there. So the earlier in the
> series, the better the print.
>
> The Artists Proof is the "state" which the artist has approved, hence the
> name, and is not numbered but is marked APand is kept by the artist with
the
> records of the edition. The edition is a series of exact reproductions of
> the AP and normally an artist will terminate the edtion when he or she
feels
> the series prints are no longer up to the standard of the AP. (The AP is
> NOT "prints which are not good enough to sell but too good to throw away",
> as we have recently seen written..........) At the end of the edition, the
> plate is "struck", scored through with a drypoint. (So there was no chance
> of the printmaker hanging on to the plate and selling a few of a famous
> artist's work "on the side"......)
>
> Now to all intents and purposes a properly made photographic negative is
> capable of pretty well unlimited reproduction as fine art prints- there
may
> be a point at which the light begins to degrade the neg, but I have never
> come across anyone who has reached it! So it is very hard to see
"editions"
> of fine art photographic prints as anything other than a cynical attempt
to
> push prices up.
>
> Personally I find the notion of "limited editions" of photographic prints
> running into several hundred laughable, especially as I know that many who
> do so simply make an "edition" greater than they can ever hope to sell.
Then
> they make the prints to order........Baloney. It does not fool me and I
> sincerely hope it fools no-one else. (Both Weston and Adams were set
against
> this sort of nonsense BTW and both always sold their prints for affordable
> amounts.)
>
> We may also note that some alt-photo techniques amount to each print being
> an individual artwork in its own right- consider bromoil or multiple
> exposure gum for example- and the edition system is just inappropriate for
> these.
>
> In my opinion it is time that we all accepted that Photography, the art of
> making marks by the use of light, is emphatically not a "branch of
> Printmaking", and is an art in its own right. As such it needs a broadly
> accepted system which answers its own needs, while at the same time
> protecting the rights of the buyers of fine art prints, and of course of
the
> artists. It definitely does not need a bogus "limited edition" system
which
> may amount to notional "editions" of three or four hundred of which only
> fifty may actually ever be made! This just debases Photography as a fine
> art.
>
> (Those "limited editions" of several hundred sometimes made by painters to
> boost their income are just offset litho prints- ie posters, and are
> deserving of contempt. IMHO.)
>
> The system I have adopted, and I don't expect anyone else to, I just note
it
> here for interest, is to write the title in the middle below the image but
> on the paper, together with the date of the negative (eg Sarah Nude, 1979,
> or Ethie Woods, 1989) and I sign and date the print at bottom right (eg
Rod
> Fleming 2000), all in pencil. I do not pretend to make "editions" even
> though I am sometimes urged to, for the reasons I have given.
>
> I drymount silver gelatin prints on pure rag board, (because I like it
the
> effect) and overmat with matching board. I mount other types of print in a
> folding archival mat mount.
>
> I would welcome further discussion about this very relevant issue, but if
> others feel that it's not alt-process enough, we can go off-list
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Rod
>
>
>
>
>
> .----- Original Message -----
> From: "garimo" <omirag@cruzio.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>;
> <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 07:23
> Subject: a question...
>
>
> > hello,
> > I'm preparing for another studio tour... and reprinting some older
> > negatives that I no longer have prints of... and I'm wondering if there
> > is a standard practice of dating out there in the real world. What
> > makes the date of a print? The year when the negative was made? or the
> > year when the print was was printed? or, is it just as standard to not
> > think about it and put no date on the prints. What do you do?
> > garimo
> >
> > p.s.
> > The yearly Santa Cruz County- Open Studio Tour, presented by Cultural
> > Council of S.C. takes place the first three weekends of October this
> > year. With 250 selected artist studios open for visitors, it's the big
> > yearly event for (the lucky 250) artists in this area. Hundreds of
> > people from around the country pass through the studios each weekend.
> > I just sent scans off for printing of postcard announcements. If you
> > send me a address
> > *OFF LIST* I'll send you one. the image is a cyanotype of the redwoods
> > just outside my front window.
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:22 PM Z CST