Richard S. Sullivan (email@example.com)
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:06:23 -0600
At 10:51 PM 7/22/99 -0400, you wrote:
>The negative is the orignal--not the print.
>I personally find this entire subject repugnant. Photographers who are
>artists who attempt to appeal to the value collectors are truly stupid.
>The photograph is far more important than any collector.
>No negative that is valued by a photographer should ever be destroyed. The
>negative is the photograph--not the print--no matter what technique was used
>to create the print.
>Don't ever give in to the stupid gallery owners, who are not interested in
>artists in the least. They are only interested in their own gain!
You and I are probably the lucky ones as we don't have to depend on sales
of our photography or art for a living. Steiglitz was enamored of the
enlightened amateur as well. If one chooses photography as a profession you
have basically two choices, commercial or fine art. If you choose fine art,
and you are not independently wealthy, then you must depend on print sales
-- at least to cover expenses. Appealing to collectors has been an
honorable endeavor for centuries. Michaelangelo appealed to his Collector
Pope Leo, most of the painters we revere in museums spent a good deal of
their lives trying to appeal to collectors. Without sales their life line
would be cut off. I don't see any contradiction in appealing to collectors
and being true to ones art.
Not all gallery owners are stupid. Not all exploit their stable. In fact
quite the opposite can happen as I know of a number of photographers who
have been nurtured and developed by galleries only to split when the sales
started coming in good.
If you have followed this thread I think it will be obvious that I think
that limiting editions is not a good idea in photography and neither do I
think that destroying negatives is a good idea. My point has been that the
limited edition system practiced for the most part today is more scam than
anything else. I say if you limit editions then limit them for now and
forever. I would not do what Brett did, but at least he followed his
convictions and I respect him for that.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37