From: Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Date: 06/06/02-09:07:12 AM Z
Alejandro,
I don't think the conflict is between being an "artist" or not being an
"artist" but perhaps best seen as whether one is a print maker or not.
Bostick & Sullivan specializes in photographic printmaking media. Our
business has grown from a one person garage based business in 1980 to 6
employees and operating out of an industrial building. This has occurred
despite the parallel advent of the desktop computer and computer based
imaging. Actually it is hard to imagine the growth of B+S without the
computer and the Internet.
Much of what one sees in the growth of alternative photography is in many
ways akin to the Arts & Crafts Movement of the late 19th Century. I don't
view the growth of the handmade and crafted photograph as a reactionary
movement, quite the opposite, as it has been quite positive. Most people
have not reacted against the incursion of computer technology as might be
expected if it was a "reactionary" movement but have embraced the computer
pretty much as we have seen here on the List.
The emphasis in photography has been either on the "image" and "print."
There are those whose work is primarily destined for mass produced
publication or computer display. These can best be described as image
makers. Some like Metzger cross over and become sellers of photographic
"objects." However like Metzger, many of the crossovers do it in the spirit
of the image maker and the production of the object is more or less a
"publication" as a for hire Fresson print might be.
On the other side are the hard core photographic crafts people like those
found here on the List. To us the image is also a concern: no image - no
print. It is not as if we don't have a concern for the image but our
concerns go further. However, much of our emphasis will be on the making of
the print. Most of us consider that in order for the print to be
"authentic," it should be made by hand and by the image maker
herself. Authenticity is enhanced by a shallow technology depth. That is
the closer one gets to making the image with simple raw materials the more
authentic it becomes. Thus one who hand coats has a closer "personal"
relation to the print than one who is separated by 4 million computer chip
etched transistors and jets squirting picoliters of ink with microns of
separation to make an image.
The negative is at the far end of the spectrum and has traditionally been
seen as far less of a component of authenticity issue than the print. Thus
brother Dan Burkholder and his wonderful work on digital negative making
has been embraced by most hand coated print makers without much ado. It is
not the negative that is being sold or going into the archives of history,
but the print.
Underlying this is the issue of rarity. People who pay money for prints
often like the print to be limited: that is rare. Perhaps this is not
always the most benefit to the collector as the more common images of many
photographers are in fact the most valuable, Moonrise for instance!
Two issues are bond into the limited edition hoopla in photography. One is
that originally editioning was invented to insure the buyer that the image
was of a high quality. Etchings and other intaglio printmaking processes
wore down plates and after 100 images or so the wear was quite visible and
was reflected in the quality of the image. This issue is null and void for
most forms of photography.
The second issue of limited editions is to make the print "rare." This is
quite a convoluted issue. Last week I had a discussion with a gallery owner
who asked me about this issue of limited editions. He knew I had written
about it and was startled to hear from a French Collector that the he had
read my article translated into French in a French photo journal.
The point I made to the gallery owner was that limiting editions hurt an up
and coming >long term successful< photographer. I pointed out that Arnold
Newman had obviously sold thousands of Stravinksky's at an average overall
price in the thousands and that Arnold had netted probably in or near the
million dollar mark on the one print and that he had had numerous other
images from the 40's thru 60's raking in the dough as well. Had Arnold
limited his editions he'd be out of luck and would have only made thousands
and only in the currency of the past.
The dealer said to me: "Ah, but he's the exception!"
Well Duh! Of course. He's successful, and as such, is the exception. If the
financial history of art follows the trend set over the last 400 years 99%
of what is sold today will be nearly worthless in 100 years.
What was admitted to me by the dealer was the recognition that the dealer
actually knew that the average photography would not be successful and
should get the money while the money was gettin. Push up prices while you
can and the future be damned as there was no future for most photographers.
Secondly the dealer's stake is short term. If he builds a photographers
career he wants to reap the gains now as there is little chance he will
reap any gains 50 years from now. Any future gains are going to be reaped
by the photographer and the galleries of the future.
Ok the two sides of the limited edition bamboozle in photography are:
quality assurance -- a no go, and artificially imposed rarity: good for the
dealer short term. Good short term for the average photographer who is
going nowhere fast. Bad for the future Arnold Newman who will have no
iconic images to sell to collectors of Modern Masters and who will find
their images locked out of the market. (But then we can always pretend the
images were only limited to that size or media and strike more images...)
Neither issue really affects the hand coated print maker. Quality is not an
issue. And secondly, rarity is not either. I know of a number of
photographers in their 70's making their own 12 x 20 platinum prints of
which they have several hundred editions up for sale. The editions are
limited to 50 prints with 5 artists proofs. So with 200 prints times 55 we
have 11,000 12x20 prints in the total editions. Duh! Double Duh!
Consider that it takes approximately 2 hours to make a print. That's over
11 years of full time work 40 hours a week, day in day out no holidays or
vacations for a photographer in his 70's. Who's fooling who?
Arnold Newman is an image maker and does not have the built in limitation
that the handmade print maker has, and yet he has reaped the benefit of not
having limited his editions in his younger days. But then so what? What if
he had limited his editions and sold them at the Limelight in 1956? No one
then got a contract and few if any get one today. All the print might have
had on it was "25 of 50." Imagine a lawyer trying to force Arnold to quit
printing an image today based on that. "Oh, that was limited to prints made
on Agfa Primadonna, these are on Kodak Yellerfeller!"
In some senses the image makers have adopted the limited editions bit to
emulate the handcoated folks and the handcoaters in return are adopting the
image makers limited editions in emulation of the image makers. Sort of
like chasing your tail.
Ok, I ramble a bit too much.
--Dick Sullivan
wrote:
>Hi Sandy:
>
>
>
>Sorry for not answering fast, but I went away for a while and on top of that
>I had a terrible allergy crisis. I think I am better now.
>
>
>
>I am trying to understand the concept of being an artist who uses
>photography as his medium of expression and not doing ones own printing. The
>more I think on this matter the less I can understand it. No matter how I
>approach the subject I cannot I separate the art of creating an image on
>your mind, then creating this image in a light sensitive material and then
>reproducing this image on a surface and the artist be involved in only the
>first or the second step if at all. There are many who are only involved in
>the second step (an image not "this image").
>
>
>
>The Fresson printing and Ms. Sheila Metzner Fresson's prints is to me the
>perfect example of what I think on this matter. In this case the
>photographer does not even understand how the Fresson printing method works,
>since somebody else is doing part of what should be her work. Anyhow, since
>Ms. Metzger is a commercial fashion photographer I see nothing wrong in her
>approach since it is a norm for commercial photographer not to do their own
>printing. We have to remember they are in the business of mass production.
>
>
>
>Only when someone wants to calls himself or herself an artist is when one
>should be extremely careful in accepting someone as such.
>
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Alejandro
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sandy King" <sanking@clemson.edu>
>To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 4:25 PM
>Subject: Re: Freeson / John Stewart
>
>
> >
> > Alejandro,
> >
> > You need to get over your shock quickly because the fact of the
> > matter is that many well known photographers have at least a part of
> > their work printed by others. Some may not do any printing at all.
> > You will find quite a number of Pt/Pd printers who make a living
> > printing primarily the work of other artists. I suspect we may have
> > one or two such persons on the list now.
> >
> > And did you think that Sheila Metzner made any of those
> > "Quadrichromie Fressons" that have brought her such wide spread
> > attention?
> >
> > Sandy King
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Hi:
> > >
> > >I thought that all artist did they own printing, especially if they dare
>to
> > >sign the photograph. I cannot conceive someone signing a photograph if
>they
> > >didn't do the whole work. I am saying this, because obviously a Fresson
> > >print is not made by the photographer. I am in shock to find out that is
>not
> > >the case.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Alejandro
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "John Cremati" <johnjohnc@core.com>
> > >To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:26 AM
> > >Subject: Re: Freeson / John Stewart
> > >
> > >
> > >> Are any or these the images you had looked at? John Cremati
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> http://www.staleywise.com/collection/stewart/stewart.html
> > >>
> > >> http://www.staleywise.com/collection/Buds4_02/LotusA.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: <ARTHURWG@aol.com>
> > >> To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 5:45 PM
> > >> Subject: Freeson / John Stewart
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > I happened by the Staley-Wise Gallery in NYC today and saw two
>really
> > >> > beautiful large Freeson prints (of flowers) by John Stewart. The
>paper
> > >> seemed
> > >> > to have a wonderful embossed (?) vertical-stripe pattern. Those
>nearby
> > >> might
> > >> > like to have a look.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/02/02-10:33:22 AM Z CST