From: Rod Fleming (email@example.com)
Date: 05/28/00-11:24:05 AM Z
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Kiss" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "ALT PHO PROC." <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 03:57
Subject: EINE KLEINE QUESTION
> DEAR ROD ET AL.
whether or not to dry mount
> prints was "From your perspective, no!
Yeah, know. I'm going to have to kick the habit sometime....
> Sooooo, singing on the mount board isn't a good idea. Signing, dating
> and (egad!) numbering in pencil on the back is.
I can't disagree with that- I have not used the Renaissance wax, but if I
did move to it I'd probably just sign the back......It's where my copyright
mark goes on commercial work, so it has good provenance.
>but we artists and photographer who bring beauty to this
> otherwise amazingly materialistic world are opposed to protecting our
> incomes and the values for our collectors by limiting our editions. .
Edward Weston thought that anyone should be able to afford a print if they
really wanted it. To me part of the attraction of photography as a medium,
rather than the more exclusive ones, is its ubiquity. A great photograph is
not degraded by being widespread.
> list had this discussion about 10 months ago but I guess it will never
Sorry- not my intention to go over old ground!
> It IS STANDARD GALLERY procedure to make a limited edition and retire the
> negative to a vault for 100 years so the photographer will not make any
> more. We tend to keep negatives because any image, regardless of its
> original intent, is an historical document and of interest to students,
> orians, sociologists etc in the future.
Well I personally will not wear that, so I take heart from your next
>Yes, we can, and many contemporary
> fine photographers are, having it both ways...as long as procedures are
> clearly stated and adhered to.
Definitely. Every artist, no matter what discipline they are working in,
owes it to themselves and their audience to think through their practise and
stick to it.
> I, for one, believe that, since I am
> unwilling to join them, I will beat them at their own game while remaining
> an artist true to my aesthetic muses. Two hats? Schizophrenia? Heck yeah!
> "Was and is to be". We have two halve brains and some define sanity as the
> ability for those two to communicate and live in harmony. After all,
> Michaelangelo DID collect his gold from Pope Julius (the second?) after he
> finished the ceiling...didn't he?
Sorry, Bob, you're escaping me here.......
Actually my real bitch is with those photographers, many of whom have sites
on the 'net, who are selling so-called "limited editions" of 250 or so
prints, at really inflated prices. We all know these are not really
editions, that the prints are made to order, and I find that whole thing a
hypocrisy. If you're into editions, fine, make an edition of 10 or 20 or 30
or whatever, and then strike the neg, or give it into safekeeping with the
local museum archivist, or file it. I don't think it matters as long as you
state what you're up to and stick to it. Your integrity as an artist should
be respected. I think that's all perfectly valid and I have no issue with
it. FWIW personally I usually make 6 prints from a neg and that's it, even
though I don't make a fuss of it- I just want to move on.
But I really don't like to see photography degraded with these totally
spurious "limited editions" Personally.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:22 PM Z CST