From: Alejandro Lopez de Haro (alhr@wanadoo.fr)
Date: 06/09/02-01:49:54 AM Z
Dear Richard:
Sorry for the mistake in your name. I was writing to Arthur about his
forthcoming visit to Paris and somehow or other I use his name instead of
yours.
Richard Sullivan wrote: "I am not saying that folks should make or not make
their own prints, but if the print is not made by the image maker then the
print maker, who in my mind is a collaborator in the process, should get
recognition."
I think we in agreement in our concepts of artists who uses the photographic
medium as a medium of artistic expression. I cannot agree more with your
thoughts that the printmaker should get recognition as a collaborator in the
process.
Richard Sullivan wrote: "The collaboration of a great image maker and a
great printmaker may in fact exceed the sum of the whole"
I agree once more and this is another argument of why the printmaker should
get recognition. In your example the art making is not done buy one
individual since it is a collaborative work. It is as in filmmaking where a
film is a collaborative effort of the actors, director, director of
photography, cameramen, etc., where everyone gets recognition. It seems that
in film there is more honesty than in photographer-artists who are not doing
their own printing and passing their work as their own. I could add that an
artist who is not involved in they own printmaking makes his art: "an
ensemble art form created by groups of individuals."
Richard Sullivan wrote: "Adams and Brett Weston both solved these problems
in their own way by either burning or locking away their negatives and
neither have postmortem editions to confuse the issue."
Again we are in agreement and I perhaps will go one step forward and it is
to burn them. But, we must agree that it takes a lot of courage to burn ones
own negatives.
Richard Sullivan wrote: "Taking it out of the realm of photography might be
useful. For instance, Sam Maloof, the great furniture maker and designer who
is now in his late
80's, makes and designs furniture. A Sam Maloof rocking chair made in his
studio goes for $12,500.00 Sam makes the best pieces himself and cuts his
own dovetails by hand with a chisel. No one will deny that one can make
"more perfect" dovetails with a router and dovetail guide so why on earth?
Well I say the piece has a little bit more of Sam Maloof in it. It in fact
is a bit more authentic."
I cannot better express what is the difference between a print or in our
case the finish work of art where the artist have been involved himself or
herself in every step of the way and a print that is done commercially.
I am not going to touch on the topic of digital photography or so call
digital art. I haven't made up my thoughts on this matter. I am still
reading, talking and visiting expositions on digital art. In other words, my
knowledge on the subject is like the knowledge of a college freshman. There
is one digital photographic artist which have caught my eyes and he is:
Andrea Gursky. Any thoughts on him?
Best regards,
Alejandro López de Haro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Sullivan" <richsul@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: Fresson and handmade
>Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 14:21:07 +0200
>From: Alejandro Lopez de Haro <alhr@wanadoo.fr>
>Subject: Re: Fresson and handmade
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
>Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
>
>Hello Arthur: [Richard?]
>
>I agree that there is not a conflict between being an artist and not being
>one or one being a printmaker or not. After all not everyone can become an
>artist or a printmaker or a photographer.
>
>
>
>My point is that if someone uses the photographic medium as a medium of art
>and if he or she sells themselves as artists, then they must be involved in
>every step of their work, because otherwise they are not being honest to
the
>viewing public.
Every step? Or every step of the print making process? Does this involve
making the film? Or if you are a platinum printer does this mean making
your own ferric oxalate?
I don't think we are disagreeing here at all. It is a tricky issue. I think
the handmade photograph reflects some essence of the print maker to a
greater degree than say a digital print does. I am not saying that folks
should make or not make their own prints, but if the print is not made by
the image maker then the print maker, who in my mind is a collaborator in
the process, should get recognition. As a collector I'll take any Cartier
Bresson or Arnold Newman prints you might have lying about that were not
made by those individuals themselves. I think it is less of an issue with
silver printing than with traditional handmade prints. My thoughts are less
to take away credit from the image maker but rather to credit the
collaboration of the print maker like Bellows or Sloan did for Bacon or
Brown.
I am aware that current printmaking practice in the graphics world no
longer credits the printer as it did in the past. No one is claiming that
the world of art commerce has gotten any more forthright in its practices
in the last 75 years, quite the contrary. But that is not to say that the
artists can't inflict a bit more ethics on the market.
>If I read you between lines you are also raising the point of limited
>editions as of arguing that an artist should not do their printing or
>limited their prints because they will not have the time to do their
>printing and hence they will be limiting their income. From the point of
>view of money, I cannot agree more with you, but that is precisely my
point:
>If an artist is an honest artist or not.
No not at all, just the opposite. Limiting editions on handmade prints is a
farce. It might serve a short term market. For a man or women in their 70's
to have an edition backlog of 40 or 50 years worth of printing is
ludicrous. Only if editions are continued after the artist is gone would
editioning serve any purpose and then it is quite problematic. Not that Man
Ray, Daqli, Chagall, and Norman Rockwell postmortem prints are all highly
suspect by collectors and need a lot of verification due to edition
problems by trustees. Adams and Brett Weston both solved these problems in
their own way by either burning or locking away their negatives and neither
have postmortem editions to confuse the issue.
This of course illustrates a problem with digital prints. How can one be
assured that no copies of the file have been made? The millionth copy --
which is quite possible with digital print and difficult to imagine with a
traditional carbon print -- is every bit as authentic as the first. That is
as far as authenticity can go with a digital (giclee) print. (Why for
heavens sake did they choose the French word for ejaculate to describe
them?!)
I have a Tina Modotti platinum print. There are several of her 8x10 negs
floating around Mexico. This is a postmortem re strike made by a very fine
platinum printer. It is certainly not worth as much as one made by her or
someone else during her lifetime but it is quite valuable nonetheless.
Compare this to a digital print. Would a print made from a digital file
which was exactly the same file bit for bit as the original be as valuable.
I can be fairly certain that there are not a million Modotti prints made in
platinum from this negative floating around out there while one cannot be
so sure if a digital print gets loose.
I think the issue at the root is what I call "authenticity." Perhaps an
amorphous concept but one I think is quite real and one that can help us
shed some light on some of these issues. Authenticity as I am struggling to
define is that amount of the artist which is bound up in the object itself
whether that object be a symphony, painting or photograph. Authenticy is
also defined to a degree by the art form itself. A symphony being different
from a painting for instance.
Taking it out of the realm of photography might be useful. For instance,
Sam Maloof, the great furniture maker and designer who is now in his late
80's, makes and designs furniture. A Sam Maloof rocking chair made in his
studio goes for $12,500.00 Sam makes the best pieces himself and cuts his
own dovetails by hand with a chisel. No one will deny that one can make
"more perfect" dovetails with a router and dovetail guide so why on earth?
Well I say the piece has a little bit more of Sam Maloof in it. It in fact
is a bit more authentic.
There will never be a rule that one can build an Excel spreadsheet around
that will give one an "authenticity rating" anymore than an esthetic rating
could be so defined. A George Bellows print pulled by Peggy Bacon may be a
bit less authentically George Bellows and a bit more authentically Peggy
Bacon. In fact the sum of the parts may add up to more than the whole in
this case. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to have image made by so and
so and the prints by "anonymous," or in fact worse, as anonymous doesn't
even get credit in most cases now.
The collaboration of a great image maker and a great printmaker may in fact
exceed the sum of the whole and great printmaking ateliers such as Tamarind
or Gemini have operated on this principle though in this case the
collaboration is with the atelier and not the individual printers.
We're seeing a flood of digital work hitting the market now and these
issues will become more important in the future. I went to three photo
openings yesterday and an photo auction last week here in Santa Fe. The
digitals faired quite badly at the auction and all the digitals were
buy-ins except the 16x20 virtual clone of the famous Imogene Cunningham
Magnolia Blossom pic! Sheese, it took b*lls to make that image!
Interestingly the topic of digital came up at all three openings. the
question was some variation on "How is the digital thing affecting your
business."
"Up 25% this year!"
Several issues are obvious from the questions and discussion that were
about. One is galleries are flooded with potential new digital workers to
represent. Sales of digital are not going as expected but then sales are
down on contemporary photography anyway. It is also to be noted that many
digital image makers are willing to sell low and yet the galleries want
(need) to sell high to cover overhead. It is obviously easier to pull an
edition of 25 digs as to pull 25 platinums but just as much overhead
selling either one!
It seem most of the digital work is combined images, works made by putting
things out of context, most is very imaginative but imagination without the
constraint imposed by conventional photography. It is clear that galleries
are struggling with the issues.
--Dick Sullivan
>Regards,
>
>Alejandro López de Haro
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Richard Sullivan" <richsul@earthlink.net>
>To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:07 PM
>Subject: Re: Fresson and handmade
>
>
> > 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