From: John Cremati (johnjohnc@core.com)
Date: 03/09/02-04:27:32 PM Z
The lithographic print market a while ago started a new way of
marketing artist's prints.. In the process they destroyed their market...I
do not know if it has ever recovered ....
A fine art lithographic printer would send out a sample lithographic
print to all the galleries in the US.. They would announce that on May the
1st they would open the edition and on May the 31st they would close the
edition... What resulted were editions of thousands..... To a investor/
collector this was ridiculous as prior to this they were buying limited
editions of 10 up to 250 in the $250 to $350 price range... Now they are
paying the same for editions of 5000..They backed out of the market
completely as they were no longer considered good investments........
The moral of the story is that I knew I should have tried to corner
the market on black velvet paintings of Elvis while I had the chance!....JC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Sullivan" <richsul@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: The future of the handmade print?
> Sandy,
>
> What you say is logical and rational. The only problem is that art is
neither.
>
> The issue of "authenticity" rears its ugly head. One could logically say
it
> matters not one wit whether a painting in the Met was actually painted by
> Rembrandt or "looked just like one," but the dust bins of museums are full
> of "looks just like ones." Artists are universal heros and in fact more
> people in the US visit museums than attend sports events! Surveys have
> shown that more people can name 10 great artists than can name 10 great
> sports heroes. There is a collected connectedness to the past when one
> stand before a Rembrandt that one does not feel when standing before a
> "Rembrandt wannabee"
>
> The issue of multiples adds another dimension to the authenticity debate.
> Limiting the number of multiples is thought to increase their authenticity
> and the market tends to bear this out. I have written on the issue of
> limited editions before and won't go into it now:
> http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/musings.htm
>
> If image quality were the issue then one could run thousands of high
> quality reproduction off a good quad tone offset press. Behind a frame on
a
> wall it is very difficult and impossible in many cases to tell a high
> quality offset reproduction from an original alt print. Most photographers
> would quickly correct anyone looking at their work and saying "Oh that's a
> reproduction!"
>
> "Hell no, that's an original Sullivan!"
>
> But if it is one of 100,000 is it an "original Sullivan?"
>
> I contend something has craft value as well as art value. A good Karistan
> broadloom rug is as good as any "Persian" hand tied carpet. One takes a
> family a year to make and the other spins off a mechanical loom is
minutes.
> One is worth 10 times the other. One is a naturally "limited edition." One
> is an authentic hand made rug. Guess which one.
>
> Carbon, gum, bromoil, etc are in some sense "naturally limited" editions.
> Morris and the Pictorialsts raged against the mass production coming to
> fore at that time and I think they had their finger on the reason, and
that
> there was a natural limitation to mass production via the handmade route
> and thus there was more authenticity to their work.
>
> The fact is that from my perspective most young emerging photographers
> "limit" their editions. I think it is wrong to do so but it is clear the
> inspiration to do so is market driven. If the motivation was to allow as
> many people to enjoy the images as possible then we should hold the button
> down and let thousands pop out.
>
> "Ah, but some would say," your just arguing from a market point of view."
> True! And in my four years as a gallery director I found very few who
would
> forsake the career and income of becoming a noted fine arts photographer.
> When I'd gently point out flaws in presentation I'd often get "But that
has
> nothing to do with art!" type comments, "I just want to do art." Well, I'd
> say in as gentle terms as I could, "Then go away and do art, why are you
> here?" Often just stunned silence.
>
> It is also from my perspective that most alt photographers desire the
> natural limitation that the process imposes and feel that the work
acquires
> more authenticity because of it.
>
> Gut spilled.
>
> --Dick Sullivan
>
> Cross posted to
>
> http://sirius.secureforum.com:8080/~bostick/login
>
>
>
>
> >The idea you express are virtually identical to the aesthetic ideology
> >espoused by the Pictorialists over a century ago, specifically, only
> >photographs that show hand work or intervention by the photographers
could
> >be considered works of art. That idea, then as now, is too narrowly
> >construed. So too was the opposing modernist view that photographs should
> >only be made on glossy silver gelatin papers.
> >
> >One of the most outstanding photographers of the pictorial school in
> >Spain, Migue Goicochea (died Pamplona in 1983) made in 1928 a statement
> >about processes that I consider to be equally valid today. My translation
> >of the original statement that appeared in Spanish in the magazine Foto
> >follows.
> >
> >"Let's talk about processes. I am convinced that they all have the
> >potential to produce art. If Robert Demachy were to read this he might be
> >incensed, since he was of the opinion that only the pigment processes are
> >capable of giving artistic results, and indeed, only a few of these. But
> >we should not be so intransigent in this matter. Exclusiveness blinds us
> >and prevents a proper appreciation of many worthy things."
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Sandy King
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST