Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/04/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Carbon is a metal? On Apr 10, 2013, at 4:15 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > 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/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information