From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 09/13/03-07:14:18 AM Z
Funny, I've been thinking of David Vestal as I've watched the replies to
the question. I've always been rather in agreement with his premise in
that column, that photographers would do well not to fall into the
edition trap, and all this stuff about "states' and whatnot has
reinforced that belief. I'll continue as I have, not specifying
anything with regard to edition but continuing to almost always make
just one print of an image, leaving open the option that if I want to
later, I can make another one. I would never destroy a negative. (Well,
not on purpose. They do seem to self-destruct of their own accord, like
the paper negatives that I oiled with vegetable oil, that turned rancid
and stank for a few years, and recently when I went to look at one of
them for some reason, found they had turned brown and crumbled to
bits.)
I agree with everything you say about "monoprint", although my first
thought when I saw the word in this context, that it was a gallery word
intended to connote uniqueness, seems to have been correct.
As to Liam's question about what the buyers thought they were buying
when they bought one of my prints that was marked 1/1; I really doubt if
those buyers cared or even noticed the 1/1; they just liked the print
and the process. This was when I first started showing my work; sales to
serious collectors were later, when there was nothing about uniqueness
on the labels. I don't know whether or not it has been brought up with
the gallery as a concern when those purchases have been made. As to what
the gallery owner thought the 1/1 meant, I'm pretty sure what she meant
was that even if I made another print from the same image, it would be
different, so each print is unique. I'm still not quite buying that as
the right way to use 1/1, which I think of as a label for a real
monoprint (which I would actually call a monotype, but let's not further
confuse the issue).
Thanks for a considered and cogent answer.
Katharine
Judy Seigel wrote:
>
> 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