RE: "Gum Joy", monoprints, and sizes

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

curzon@tegenlicht.com
Date: 09/13/03-12:03:18 AM Z


There are photographers who really make just one print of a negative and
then destroy the negative. I also met someone who made a serie of 10 prints
and locked the negative in a fault for al least 50 years.
Some do these things as a genuine philosophy, some do it to make the print
more "unique" and therefore more desired/expensive.
I have no problems with both options. If an artist thinks there shouldn't be
a second print of his work it's his right to do so. If someone wants to try
to raise the prices of his work it's also fine.

Just be clear about it. Don't make people guess, don't suggest what is not.
If you are printing an image again (or will do so in the future) it's my
opinion you shouldn't call it a monoprint or #1 of 1. Sure, you could argue
that you won't be able to make an excact duplicate, but there will be other
prints almost like it. And there are other way to tell the public you're not
making these prints on a Xerox.

I would suggest not just to put the word "monoprint" (or something like
that) on it, but to describe in a few words what you mean.

" there will be only 10 prints made within the next 25 years"
" there will be several prints made, however none of them will be exactly
the same"
or whatever.

Be clear and honest about it.

Bert from Holland

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Liam [mailto:liam.lawless@blueyonder.co.uk]
Verzonden: zaterdag 13 september 2003 1:35
Aan: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Onderwerp: Re: "Gum Joy", monoprints, and sizes

What does the buyer believe s/he's getting with a 1/1 print? What does the
gallery say it means if they should ask?

Liam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Brubaker" <jack@jackbrubaker.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: "Gum Joy", monoprints, and sizes

>
>
> Katharine Thayer Wrote
>
> I had a gallery that for
> > a while insisted on putting "1/1" on the tags by my work, and I made
> > them stop it, because while I almost always make just one print of each
> > image, I don't want to close the option if sometime I decide I want to
> > make another one. But sometimes I get the idea that what they mean by
> > "unique" is that since it's handmade, it won't be exactly like another
> > print even if it's made from the same negative. So which is it, can it
> > be "1/1" or "monoprint" even if you print the same image again? The way
> > I've thought about this is the past, my answer has been no, 1/1 means
> > this is the only print that will be made from this image. Would be
> > interested in thoughts on this.
> > Katharine
>
>
> In printmaking (intaglio, lithography, that kind of printmaking) it is
> traditionally accepted that a plate can be printed again after the edition
> has been printed by making some (sometimes small) change and printing a
new
> edition that is labeled "second state". Usually this implyed that the
artist
> developed the concept of the print between states by adding new work to
the
> image or changing the colors used to print one or more of the layers of
the
> image. But if we are talking about gum prints which seldom print exactly
the
> same a later printing will be different in some manor and might justify
the
> second state terminology. If that is an acceptable answer the image is
> signed with the note -2nd state- either after the title or with the
edition
> number.
>
> You probably are aware of this, if not, hope it helps
>
> Jack
>


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST