Re: Rotating Josef was Actual Photograph

Just FYI's, as I wrote earlier, it is not the medium but the finality
of the print: its quality. What Dick writes below, of his image "going"
for fifty bucks @ an auction is so familiar. And the fake Cunninghams
for six hunnert clams. It's a market and what people think/know. Around
80 years ago photographs, in nouveau frames, of Gibson Girl
proportioned women wrapped in a diaphanous material to perhaps
represent the caul of birth, sold by the thousands. As Alt. Ph. Proc.
folks we all remember P.H. Emerson's, "A Winter's Morning". This sold
many hundreds of prints, then grew out of favor. It is what is in the
public's mind that sells. Steichen's use of photography as an
advertising tool sold lots of Jergen's products so it is no wonder
Dick's image went for less.

One of my recent projects was creation of a portfolio of images from
1968. Portraits, of a now well respected artist and a translucent mask.
They were done digitally in my studio, printed on Hahnemhule rag
w/archival inks configured by Wilhelm to last over a hundred years. One
set sold to a museum but they wished chromogenic prints which I then
had to create. What was received will not last as long (theoretically)
but is more pleasing in their mind. Ultimately it was the imagery they
wished but I thought it odd to reject the intent of an archival
creation in favor of a different criteria they held.

And, in relationship to auctions . . mine go between 200 and 500 but
now and then slip to 75 or so dollars. I always think we don't give
nearly that much of a donation to any other area or service or
organization. When it comes down to it, my work goes to maybe 4 or five
auctions per annum and that raises from 5 to 15 hundred dollars. That
is a lot of money and had me thinking when we gave over a hundred
dollars to the tsunami victims.

Jack Fulton

> I'm pretty much of a doofer when it comes to gallery prices myself. I
> was being kind saying that some digital was sold at the lower level
> market. I also actually have seen some high end digital being sold but
> in very large prints and in the non-photo ghetto market. There is a
> big crossover jump where you end up selling in "real art" galleries
> rather than in "photo" galleries. The Photo Ghetto tops out at about
> $5000.00 and the gap from there is enormous, that's where the work
> goes in big time art galleries and the prices go to 6 figures. This
> phenomenon is worthy of a master thesis.
>
> Oh, and do I know your feeling about the digital. Last year I was
> asked to donate a print for our local art center's auction. I donated
> the 8x10 platinum of the gas station that is in Christopher James'
> book and was printed in View Camera. There is a copy in the Museum of
> New Mexico and one in the collection of the Royal Photographic
> Society. It's not that I am a big name in the gallery world or
> anything but this print was relegated to the back room silent auction
> and brought down a whoppin $50.00. They didn't label it as a platinum
> and there was no data on the image at all even though I sent a full
> page description of it. The live auction had three faux Cunningham
> magnolia (one I think was an Easter Lily) blossom type pictures by
> three different photographers that were estimated at around $600.00
> per and they sold right off at about those prices. They asked for a
> another print this year -- ha!
Received on Sat Mar 19 15:09:31 2005