From: Devon John (tbidjohn@mindspring.com)
Date: 03/11/02-08:48:43 PM Z
Dick,
I have to admit I've had the same thought, and think that the printer
signing the work with "imp" would be a great idea, but the one time I did
this on a client's work they were not so happy. Maybe the tides will turn,
but for the most part I've met a bunch of artists who really don't want to
give away any crest for their work, even when the credit really should go
elsewhere. I guess we (the printers that is) will have to push the envelope
if things are going to change.
Devon
> From: Richard Sullivan <richsul@earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 08:45:33 -0700
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: The Impress Signature -- was the future of handmade
>
> Which is why I propose the "impress signature." This was and is still done
> by many printmaking ateliers. The artist producing the image signs the
> print on the left and the printer on the right by her full name followed
> with "imp." The imp. stands for impress and means "printed by."
>
> I have a small collection of the "Ashcan School" lithographic artist George
> Bellows, some are signed "imp." by Bolton Brown and some by Peggy Bacon.
> Both Brown and Bacon were lithographic artists in their own right but they
> had also mastered the fine art of pulling a lithographic print and had the
> equipment to do so. To my knowledge Bellows never printed any of his own work.
>
> Now in the case of the artist pulling his own print the standard was it was
> to remain without an "imp." signature but in the photo world the absence of
> the "imp." is not an accurate notice that the print was printed by the
> artist nor is it, I believe, an accurate notice that it was there either.
>
> I propose that those who print their own work use the "imp." abbreviation
> followed by their initials as it would be a bit much to sign it in full
> twice but a separate printer should sign it in full with the "imp." following.
>
> Much of alternative photography resembles printmaking more than the
> "enlarging technology" that has been the tradition of photography for the
> last 100 years.
> You would think atelier printers would gain some benefit from this but I
> have seen some resistance from their clients who wish to create the
> illusion that they themselves in fact printed the work. I once overheard
> one big timer at an opening taking to a group about printing work I knew
> was not printed by the speaker.
>
> --Dick Sullivan
>
> Cross posted to:
>
> http://sirius.secureforum.com:8080/~bostick/login
>
>
>
> At 09:04 AM 3/11/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>> There's no guarantee that the artist actually made the prints, many use
>> separate printers.
>>
>> Pam
>>
>> Alejandro Lopez de Haro wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Sandy:
>>>
>>> Perhaps I have been influence by the French pictorialist and their belief
>>> that Art should should pursue the aesthetics. Any how, I have seen and held
>>> many Demachy's and Puyo's photographs. I must say, that every time I have
>>> done so I feel overpower by their beauty. Not only from the image itself,
>>> which is not our discussion, but what the Limited Edition wet-print itself,
>>> crafted by the hands of the artist, conveys vis a vis a computer print. So
>>> far, I have not seen a digital image output that matches the beauty of these
>>> wet-prints.
>> ...
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pamela G. Niedermayer
>> Pinehill Softworks Inc.
>> 605 W. Crestland Dr.
>> Austin, TX 78752
>> 512-925-9313
>> http://www.pinehill.com
>>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST