From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/13/03-12:31:55 PM Z
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Liam wrote:
> 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?
With all due respect to John Stevenson, whom I overheard giving one of the
most succinct and accurate explanations of the gum process I've heard to
a visitor, I think the use of the term "monoprint" here is a misnomer...
and if memory serves not what was written on the wall, which I didn't pay
special attention to (there was so much else to see), but my recollection
is that it toggled between "edition of 5" and "unique print," or something
*like* unique print (and if this sentence isn't long enough for you, write
your own!).
If someone has a more recent general photography book than I seem to have,
perhaps they'll look it up -- but in the way I've seen "monoprint" used --
and the meaning in my Webster's 3rd international, as well as the title of
a book I have on the subject -- a Monoprint is ink or paint put on a glass
or other plate then transferred ("printed") to paper by either rubbing (eg
with a spoon) or a printing press.
True, meanings do shift (I now seem to live in the West Village, a back
formation from the realtor's term East Village, although originally the
West Village was the area west of Hudson Street which I am east of), but
in this case I think "monoprint" causes more confusion than help, in the
way that David Stewart calling his prints in the show "Fogeys" carbro
prints, tho they had so far as I've been able to discover nothing to do
with carbro, may have simply corrupted or compromised all terms involved.
The custom of numbering prints has two sources:
(1.) In printmaking from etched plates, the plate can wear out and thus a
later print is less sharp than an early one, although in some cases later
prints were seen to have a kind of shimmer that was considered the most
beautiful.
(2.) To assure the purchaser that his/her print has value because the
edition is LIMITED. I think BTW, that as with many such "strategies" this
is backwards.. After all, when a print has sold MANY it's more famous &
its value increased (the archtypical example being whatshisname's
Moonrise).
Some years ago, seized by the urge to put paid to a myth (as he so often
is) David Vestal did a survey of the actual size of edition of most
photographers. I thought Cusie Pfeiffer (my dealer at the time) gave the
best answer and probably truest in those days of our innocence: Most
photographers, she said, only do one or two, unless they sell those &
there's a demand for more: Making a good print even in silver gelatin is
very demanding and "photographers are usually more interested in the next
print, not the last." And that was what David's survey showed... average
"edition" was two or three.
However Mark Green, then Commissioner of Consumer Affairs in NYC, was
grandstanding, and issued summonses to several NYC dealers because they
hadn't POSTED the size of the edition... Ronald Feldman was one such, I
recall. (And that was but one reason I voted against Green for
mayor...plus I LIKE BLOOMBERG, though you may consider this info off
topic).
Which brings me to possibly the main reason editions are numbered now...
it has became popular if not customary to charge more for the higher
numbers.... If the first 3 prints of an edition of 8 sell for $1000 each,
the next two may sell for $2500 and the last 3 for $3500.... In other
words, numbering photographic prints (after all, the negative isn't
wearing out) is a marketing device.
However, in the case of gum prints it should be added that exact
replication isn't likely -- nor necessary or desirable. I myself if
pressed would probably label it "edition variee" (accent over the first e
I believe), a time-honored term which is self-defining.
I mention also that a photographer who does incredible 7 foot-long POPs
among other things (and --plug-- being interviewed for PF #9), says he's
been assured by his dealer that he doesn't have to make the entire edition
in advance, but just as called for, and nobody is going to put two of them
together and then pounce -- ahhh... the tones are a bit warmer in this
corner ! It's also, IMO, stultifying to make all prints just the same --
what a bore, get my stupd assistant (if I had one) to do that !
Which is to say, I reprint a negative as many times and as many ways as
the spirit moves me.... including especially years later when I've
learned something new, and AT LAST have the perfect vision, or *a* perfect
vision for the scene. There are even new ways to print some of the other
more prescribed emulsions. But IMO destroying a negative after printing
it smacks of hype... of trying to give value to something purely by
scarcity.... It makes me think they don't especially value the art and
magic of photographing, but do stuff by rote so who cares...
Anyway, Liam asks a good question -- what does the BUYER expect to get ?
A fantasy... a guarantee of VALUE. But the figures show that 85% of all
art sold brings less at 2nd sale.... That is, the original purchase price
is the highest.... tho any dealer will admit in confidence that buyers
expect the "investment" will appreciate, and most ask for reassurance on
that point.
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST