RE: Editioning ... and Unique Works of Art

--- Kate M <kateb@paradise.net.nz> wrote：

> Right, so the ideal would be one image, a limited
> number made, say 10 at
> most, and each labelled 1 of 10, 2 of 10 etc. No
> more made of that image
> ever...

To Kate and everyone...

For me yes, I guess that is, well, more ideal than an
unknowingly large number of unlimited copies being
produced.

But that is if you sell well. For thoes who don't sell
well, then it is a no issue since very few will ever be
produced anyway.

I kind of think, however, that with the growh of digital
art, we may be moving away from respecting and honoring
the "original material"...as well as the artists
"artistic dexterity" and will eventually place much
greater value on the image per se, isolated to the extent
possible, from the media and materials or software, it was
created with. As this happens, less and less emphasis will
be place on orginal, single or limited copies.

Well, I really don't know what I am talking about... but I
would like to hear from people who do ....

Whatever anyone thinks about the nature of photography,
and going aginst that very nature, if I were going to
collect works of art, I would seek out unique pieces
whenever possible... its just intuitive, instinctual,
visceral, direct, immediate, correct.

How about you?
Since much of the concern centers around the number of
copies that exist, I would like to hear from someone on
how the art collecting world has treated movies... Are
they collected? Are masters (or whatever they are called)
more highly valued than prints?

Would you rather have some particular original, or a DVD
copy?

Like I said. I don't know what I am talking about but I
enjoy hearing your thoughts!

Ray

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/
Received on Fri Jul 9 05:29:32 2004