Re: RE: Editioning

Judy about sums this thread up,

Unless you are actually publishing your prints, i.e. you are a corporate business entity keeping a running ledger with documentation to show and trace providence at a later date, say, if a print changes hands with collectors four times and eventually winds up at auction, or is donated to a museum, or whatever, then it's pretty much up to the artist what or even if numbers are used.

Gum prints may be considered close to mono"prints"( as opposed to mono"types"), being that they use a common matrix, but the outcome is dependent upon the artist's hand, thus each one is different, but similar. Taxonomically speaking, they are of the same genus, but different species ( or for what we call "splitters" as opposed to "lumpers", a different "sub"-species ).
 A, B, C, or 1, 2, 3, or Mutt and Jeff, whatever... it's up to the artist...

Editions are considered "limited" when a fixed number is assigned to the edition. Let's say an edition of 20, or 20,000.
Each print is then further isolated by a separate number, such as number "3" out of 20 or 20,000. Here you have same genus AND same species.

So, it's up to the artist/printmaker how they want to define each separate print.
Hell, you could give them pet names! :)
Cheers, Craig Z.

----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
Date: Thursday, July 1, 2004 11:40 pm
Subject: RE: Editioning

>
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Bill William wrote:
>
> > I often face a similar situation. In my work, each print
> > is a unique piece, In spite of being printed from the same
> > orginal negative...
>
> What I tend to do is give the work a title (which I usually do for
> identification) and then, if I've printed it several times, which
> I often
> do, add a number. For instance, "Study in Diagonals, #2," or some
> point
> of differentiation ("dark sky," "red shirt," etc.).
>
> If someone is worried about the prints not being identical, or
> size of the
> edition,they don't deserve to have a gum print, and if the printer
> is
> making them identical, s/he is a genius and/or wasting his/her
> time. There
> are so many different ways to print gum, surely time is better
> spent
> exploring some of them.
>
> (As far as I know, painters do not find it necessary to make their
> paintings identical -- or not on purpose anyway.)
>
> Judy
>
>
>
> > (sort of like a painter who paints the same subject in the
> > "same way" multiple times...?)
> >
> > One problem with 1-6 rather than 1/6 method... If someone
> > is trying to limit your collection, say to increase its
> > sale (resale) value, just looking at that number gives no
> > indication that it is in fact a limited edition.
> >
> > Or is there a solution to this?
> >
> > Ray
> >
> >
> >> Lisa, I always call my gum prints unique state,
> >> simply because even with
> >> the best timing under artificial light, my prints
> >> never, just never,
> >> look exactly the same - this is one of the
> >> characteristics of gum (I
> >> have been told). So I will number my prints as 1 of
> >> 6 rather than 1/6.
> >> This is in line with a traditional printmaking
> >> strategy for numbering
> >> editions of prints that are not exactly the same.
> >> Cheers
> >> Kate
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Lisa Reddig [lisa@julianrichards.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, 1 July 2004 2:57 a.m.
> >> To: Alternative
> >> Subject: Editioning
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I have a gum editioning question. Please follow me
> >> through my printing
> >> process to the query I have....
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/
> >
>
Received on Fri Jul 2 08:23:15 2004