Digital BW, The Print

Ken Carney wrote:

>If there is one clear message in this thread, it's time for the FTC and Congress to step in and clean this mess up.  As a collector of art, I have a right to know which filter was used, what was placed on Zone III, whether a Windsor brush was used or some cheap imitation, and so on.  Then I can make an informed decision as to whether it's art or not.  Isn't that reasonable?
>
>
>  
>

Truth in Labeling for Art?

These are the same people who let phrases light "lite" and "all natural" 
confuse the public!!...  They let millions of  pounds of ConAgra ground 
beef reach the public for nearly two months before they interceded -- 
and in that case public health was at risk! Foods and dietary 
supplements are constantly  mislabeled and government is  virtually 
impotent in addressing it...  

The market will easily determine the value or lack thereof in imagery 
created in certain manners...

If an artist says a work was produced in manner "x" when it was done in 
some less valuable way, when that become apparent, the value of all 
their work will go down..  Just look at all the agonizing this list  
goes through over what term  to use to describe a particular printing 
process..

If you get duped into buying a piece of art that is NOT what it was 
represented as, then its your right to sue...  Next you'd have the FTC 
checking TV appearances of Pop bands for  lip syncing..  ;-)

In situations where the beauty and unique nature of an object  are key 
to its value, there is no replacement for "caveat emptor".. Although a 
good attorney on retainer helps.. ;-)


Keith



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]