Re: Presentation Question

Ryuji Suzuki wrote:
>
> From: Schuyler Grace <schuyler@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: RE: Presentation Question
> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:38:18 -0700
>
> > Thanks to everyone who responded to my questions about presenting my Pt/Pd
> > prints.
>
> Are you already closing this thread? I was hoping to hear more about
> how others do and why they choose to do so... :-)
>

Well, since Schuyler has already indicated that he thinks there is a
"proper" way to do this, he will no doubt be shocked to hear that I
sign on the print, I mean right on the image, the way a painter would
sign a painting. I don't think of myself as a printmaker; I think of gum
printing as a cross between photography and painting, not as a subset of
printmaking, and I don't see any reason why I should follow the
conventions of printmaking in signing my work. No one has ever batted an
eye at this practice, not galleries or buyers.

The only person who has ever taken issue with the presentation of my
work, and forgive me if I've told this story here before, was when an
earnest young woman, who told me importantly that she had just earned a
degree in art, came up to me at an opening and told me condescendingly
that an original print "must" be shown with the brushmarks showing, that
it was "wrong" to mat right up to the image and hide the brushmarks in
the border, and that no one would buy my work because without the
brushmarks they would not be able to tell that it was an original
print. I knew, but she didn't, that the entire series had been sold to
a collector before the opening, and I have to admit I did enjoy smiling
graciously at this silly young woman as a gallery person came in and
went around the room putting red dots on the tags. The point being that
it's the work that sells, not the presentation, and that rules about
presentation, whether sensible or silly, are simply irrelevant, IME.
  
Katharine Thayer
Received on Fri Sep 10 23:31:19 2004