Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/04/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Its just that EDITIONS in the graphics print making sense was not simply a term which had dollar signs all over it. It came out of the process itself. A stone or silkscreen or metal plate was only good for so many images as it simply for oblivious reasons wore away and the image would get softer. Early on in the edition is where you wanted to be. And those would cost more. And for good reason as they'd be sharper. The edition was defined by how many images one could produce from the printing medium. A stone could make a lot more than a sheet of starched silk. Or a potato cut in half. It was for obvious reasons the stone would be broken when you were done printing with it. It had gotten past the point where it would produce prints to your liking. And you'd want any more prints made from it to be done by you or your people with the money going into your bank account not some guy you never met in the year 2525. Photography by nature on the other hand is not about that. Photography never wears out; a negative or slide or digital file can by nature produce as many images as you'd want. Millions. Billions. You can stack them up past the Empire state building to the moon. And chances are next year or next decade when you return to that neg or file the prints you'd make would look even better as the software and hardware and people wear get better in time. As we are in the middle of burgeoning image making technology we photographers. We've gone quickly from dye to pigment to carbon and who knows what will be shooting out of those inkjets next year? I'm guessing other metals than carbon. And the papers are getting fabulous being made of Bamboo and returning to traditional Japanese and German paper making processes from hundreds of years ago mainly for the use of water color people. The idea of retiring a neg came out of desperate attempts to establish earlier on photographs as a viable thing for gallery owners to make money on. Why buy Pepper #6 for huge bucks if the artist is still alive cranking them out? Or his son is? I feel for the gallery owner who needs the latest BMW M or collector who needs his body of collected work to keep their value but the medium itself is just not about that. Ansel was firmly against and and he in his writings on the issue certainly convinced me. I find destroying a neg to be an ultimate tragedy. And an insult against the photographic process. And I'm not going to proceed in that direction. All I can so is what I'd do. I cant speak for anyone else. I've found at the AIPAD show last week seeing top work from the top 80 photo galleries a hell of a lot of limited editions. And I find such forced business practices disheartening. I never thought it would get this big when I first started seeing it I thought it was an unfortunate fad done by second rate greedy business people. Not its quite accepted. I will never succumb to it in my own work practices. And I'm not the only one. On 4/9/13 12:17 PM, "Lottermoser George" <imagist3 at mac.com> wrote: > > On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:54 PM, Adam Bridge wrote: > >> But now, when we work entirely in digital, when any number of copies can >> be >> made at very small cost, does having a limited edition make any sense at >> all? >> Would you destroy an original RAW file (for example) to guarantee that >> you'd >> done a limited edition? >> >> I'm left with a bad feeling. Maybe he wants a new M? >> >> Anyway, am I off base here? What are your thoughts? > > There are, and always have been, many different levels of "print making." > As in every area of commerce integrity comes into play. > The integrity of the artist/printmaker? the printer? the publisher? the > agent/dealers? all. > > The actual process whether darkroom, inkjet, lithograph, woodcut, > intaglio, or > silkscreen; > whether printed with an ink roller and a spoon or on some sort of press; or > any other technique is not the main issue. > > The terms: "Limited Edition" and "First Edition" have meaning; a history; a > tradition; > and deserve to be used honorably to preserves the integrity of all > involved in > the production, distribution and sale of the editions. > > Limited Editions require numbers to establish the stated "limits." > First (and subsequent) Editions require notations establishing their > numerical > sequence. > It also helps to have an artist's signature on the print - establishing it > as > "author ized." > > My read of the Eggleston judgement makes perfect sense within the > tradition of > Limited and Sequential Editions. > Had Eggleston pulled a Second Limited Edition of Dye Transfer Prints at > exactly the same size, paper, etc. > One would have to question the integrity of that decision - and its effect > on > the "market value" of the Original Edition. > This New Edition of much larger prints on different paper, using an > altogether > different printing process, should have little to no effect on the "market > value" of the Original Dye Transfer Edition. In all likelihood this New > Edition will probably enhance the value of the Original Edition (in ways > similar to the ever increasing value of a First Edition - over subsequent > editions of our most prized authors). Since that Original Edition this > artist > has advanced in reputation and historical stature; with concomitant growth > in > his base of collectors. The more people collecting Eggleston - the more > valuable each Dye Transfer Print in that Original Limited Edition - supply > and > demand. > > The misunderstanding seems to rest in the assumption that a "Limited > Edition" > means that One and only one Limited Edition will ever be published > from any given Negative, Plate, Block, Stone, Screen, etc. > > While that may very well be the case; there have always been exceptions. > The history of a plate, wood block, lithographic stone and/or negative can > be > longer than the artist's life. > Sometimes even within the artist's lifetime changes are made to the plate > with > new prints being made, with new dates and new edition numbers. > see: <http://www.chicagoappraisers.com/rembrandt-history.html> > > Bottom line: Documentation, Provenance, Signatures, Integrity of Artist, > Printmaker, Printer, Publisher, Imprimatur, Dealer, Agent, Museum, > Collector > will determine the monetary and historical value of any particular > artifact - > whether a unique one-off or some sort of multiple. > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/