Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Tucker" <mark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 3:39 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: printing for editions


> Frank,
>
> My objection is to this entire line of thinking.
>
> What is so hard to understand here, guys? The word "edition"
> itself implies a finite number of copies. You can't go saying it's
> an edition of 25, and then come up with some cute method of
> lying about it later, when you move into 26 through 50. It's simply
> unethical.
>
> If I'm missing something here, please point it out. (All I see here
> is some underhanded method of trying to keep making money
> from the same image, long after you said you'd stop printing it). If
> this practice fell under the umbrella of the SEC, there would be
> calls for a congressional investigation of corruption.
>
> If somebody with the stature of Ansel Adams participated in this
> practice, I hereby deduct five karma points from his bank
> account. Seriously.
>
> MT

Mark, I agree entirely with your answer.

I'm not that familiar with what is normal in (art) photography but similar
multiple editions in lithography, intaglio and silkscreen printing are
considered unethical in Europe. And yet I know that it is done here too.
A well known artist in Netherlands asked me to print a silkscreen print on
two types of paper, one slightly more yellow than the other, same texture,
same paper. As he is more or less a conceptual artist I first thought it had
some meaning. Not at all as I later discovered. Both issues were numbered 1
to 40 and were sold without further information or certificate. That was 15
years ago but similar practice is done today. In every courtroom and city
hall hangs a silkscreen portraying our queen. There will not pass a day
without it being shown on tv. A similar story as I have described is
attached to that portrait, a nice reminder of unethical behaviour. I didn't
print that one though.

Ernst