Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/04/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Is Eggleston in the right? What is the meaning of "limited edition"?
From: robertmeier at usjet.net (Robert Meier)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:56:20 -0500 (CDT)
References: <CD8AA5CC.7DB8%mark@rabinergroup.com>

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



Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Is Eggleston in the right? What is the meaning of "limited edition"?)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Is Eggleston in the right? What is the meaning of "limited edition"?)