From: Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Date: 06/07/02-08:43:27 AM Z
At 04:01 PM 6/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>--- Richard Sullivan <richsul@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
><snip out good comments on editions in photography, in
>a thread about is it art if someone other than the
>photographer prints the final image>
>
>It's also true that, in the printmaking side of art
>(etching, lithography, etc.) there's a long and
>respected tradition of an artist having someone else
>-- often a younger or less successful artist -- do the
>actual printing from the stone/plate/whatever, under
>the supervision and advice of the artist who created
>the original image (often done commercially in an
>Atelier). It's one way that young printmakers get to
>make a living while perfecting their skills, and it
>allows a successful printmaker to greatly increase
>their output of good prints, while still having a
>chance to do quality control and whatnot.
>
>-- Philip
Good point. I think photographers have gravitated to the making of the
print as a form of authenticity since the "making" of the image itself is
an act of "doing" rather than "making." It may also have something to do
with the instantaneous nature of most photography. The photographer, once
the shutter is released, is more or less in a helpless situation. You gets
what you get. Of course there are variations on this theme but compared to
intaglio printmaking photography is defined differently in this respect.
And also of interest there was a tradition of the printer to sign the
prints on the right with their name and the abbreviation "imp." for
impress. Thus both Peggy Bcon and Bolton Brown pulled lithographs for
George Bellows, both printers were artists in their own right.
I now sign my prints with my full name on the left side and my initials
R.S.S. and imp. on the right to indicate that I printed the image. Dan
Burkholder and other printers have been adopting this strategy. I've
received strong opposition to this idea in response to writing I've done on
this issue in the past. Comments like: "None of my clients are going to go
for this cockamamie scheme!" and No way in hell am I going to have some
printer sign my prints." However there is nothing stopping those of us who
print their own work from initialling and putting the imp. on the print. I
don't think putting ones full name again on the right is appropriate if it
is ones own image that is being printed.
On two occasions I have gone to opening receptions of photographers that I
knew did not print the work and who pretended to have printed them. When on
one occasion after mentioning to the photographer (privately) that I was
the supplier to thus and so who made the prints I got a weird reaction and
was snubbed. It was clear that my presence was not welcome so I faded to
the background. In another case the photographer beforehand was describing
to a small group "how he made the prints" and had it all wrong. One person
in the group was a printer I knew and he smiled at me knowingly. The guest
of honor was so far off base it was obvious he had never seen the print
being made as he thought the prints were made by enlargement and not by
contact printing. He was obviously confusing the fee he made to have
enlarge negatives made with having the the prints made themselves.
The fact that there is quite a strong opposition to the idea of the "imp."
signature in photography, which has been traditional in intaglio printing,
does in fact indicate that the making of the print in photography is an
authentication issue, that is those prints made by the image maker are in
fact somehow more desirable than those made by other printers otherwise why
the vehement opposition? This is not too odd if one considers that
collectors prefer vintage prints made near the time the image was first
made to later ones, and prints made during the lifetime of the photographer
to those stuck afterwards.
--Dick Sullivan
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
>http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/02/02-10:33:22 AM Z CST