From: Pam Niedermayer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: 09/12/03-01:18:17 PM Z
Good silver prints are hand made, too, except for that rare negative
that prints without modification. Therefore, I'd say no as well, at
least if you want to keep the tradition.
Katharine Thayer wrote:
>>About the monoprint thing.....I guess John Stevenson meant unique
>>pieces.....but even that is not necessarily the case, because I have
>>made variables of several of the prints.
>This is interesting, and brings up a question. I had a gallery that for
>a while insisted on putting "1/1" on the tags by my work, and I made
>them stop it, because while I almost always make just one print of each
>image, I don't want to close the option if sometime I decide I want to
>make another one. But sometimes I get the idea that what they mean by
>"unique" is that since it's handmade, it won't be exactly like another
>print even if it's made from the same negative. So which is it, can it
>be "1/1" or "monoprint" even if you print the same image again? The way
>I've thought about this is the past, my answer has been no, 1/1 means
>this is the only print that will be made from this image. Would be
>interested in thoughts on this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST