Digital BW, The Print

This is my 3rd try at this note...Netscape crashed *twice* while trying to compose/send this,  I get the
feeling that someone doesn't want me to post it.  :- (

Mark Tucker wrote:

> Martin Wesley"
>  wrote:
> > One last thought on the "hand pulled" issue. Everyone should
> remember
> > that there have been, and are, many great and successful
> > photographers who never develop their own film much less get
> their
> > fingers wet making a print.
>
>
> Martin,
>
> Given, I am so out of my area about all these gallery issues. I
> guess the hand-pulled analogy that you quote relates to the
> whole mystique of a certain artist, and that relates to the PRICE
> of his work?
>
> (We recently had that traveling Weegee show here in Nashville.
> There were hundreds, literally hundreds, of prints in the show.
> As I walked through the room, I was shocked that these were
> being shown in a museum, in terms of their permanence
> issues. Many were crumpled-edged, stained, faded prints. I
> certainly hope people were not buying similar prints for
> investment, because from what I know of a newspaper
> darkroom
> from those times, the PermaWash/double-fixer factor was pretty
> laughable I'd say. It was
> soup-it-in-the-Dektol-whoosh-it-through-the-stop-and-wiggle-it-i
> n-the-fixer, all in record time, when you're on deadline, and then
> another paper comes out tomorrow, so archival means "one
> day".)

I think the Weegee prints have entered a different area of the 'art' market....Which like anything else, is
complex.  The Weegee images are valuable because they have become an 'ethnographic' statement of the times
during which they were shot.  And I think that's a valid concept.

It's not unlike collecting the great tribal masks from New Guinea, in the South Pacific.  These masks, even
under ideal storage conditions, degrade rather quickly (as they are made with relatively live organic
materials). They are collected as 'Art', and are fabulous forms of 'primitive' art (I suppose that's the
ultimate form of 'outsider' art), as well as saying something about the New Guinean culture (or African, or
whatever).

Sometimes, the very fact that these images degrade, *adds* to their value!  We live in an odd and complicated
world, both artistically and economically.  I don't, finally, think that it should that surprising that it is
so complex, but it adds to all of our collective frustrations in trying to promote our own work. And it might
even be counter productive to try and 'sell' our work, after all, it is, or should be produced for 'art's
sake', and not for commercial gain.  Not that there is anything wrong with making money off of our artwork!

We are all frustrated because the 'rules' are stacked against us.  They are created to exclude...It's easier
that way for the money people, collectors, and academics.  This is not bitterness on my part, just a note of
the way it is, a truism, if you will...Like the 'Five Keys to Success'.  The sooner we actually accept that
this *is* the way things are, and the sooner we don't try to fight it, the more time and energy that we'll
have to produce more work.  :- )

> In terms of mystique, I was viewing some of the beautiful prints
> of one of the more successful local art photographers recently.
> The gallery owner mentioned, with this certain tone, "Yes, he
> rides a MOTORCYCLE; that's how he gets these pictures". It did
> have some validity to me, in that the scenes were always these
> obscure, rural, out of the way places. But at the same time, I did
> snicker a bit at the tone in her voice when she told me that. I left
> the gallery thinking, "Damn -- I need a motorcycle! Yeah, that's it
> -- a motorcycle! That's what missing from my pictures - a
> motorcycle! That's what would put me on the map - a motorcycle!
> Yeah, that'll be my new schtick - a motorcycle".
>
> The motorcycle thing was that guy's "branding". Soon, (already),
> everybody will be known by two or three words, ie. "Oh yeah, he's
> that guy that does ____ ____ ____". If you can't fill in those
> blanks within three seconds, then you haven't arrived on the
> scene yet. You're still under the radar scope.

This is absolutely true.  Ask any artist who has been represented by a gallery or dealer...They 'sell'
branding.  Should he or she tell their dealer that they are changing artistic directions, and the dealers
absolutely *panic*.  Because then, it will be harder to sell.  Finally, the majority of buyers do not want to
think.  There was an article in the NY Times a few months ago about the current art auctions and 'editioned'
work.  Among other things it said that:

First:  If a museum owns one of the multiples, the rest will sell for big bucks, because the museum has put
its stamp of approval on that particular piece of art.  They noted that these buyers will now pay more for a
copy of the 'multiple', than a unique piece from the same artist.   (Note the insecurity, and non-thinkingness
of the buyers)

Second:  People will pay more (*way* more) for a 'multiple editioned' piece of art at a prestigious auction,
than they will at the gallery that originally sold the piece.  Soooooooooo Stoooooooooopid!  The NY Times
interviewed several incredulous art dealers who had artists, whose work got way 'over valued' (dealer's words)
at the Spring auctions.  They told stories about when the new owners came into the originating gallery (after
the auction) to buy more pieces from the same artist, at a much lower price.  When the gallery owners queried
why they didn't just come to the gallery in the first place, the general answer was about 'prestige', and
being sure that it was valuble...Which is to say that they didn't trust their own judgment.  So sad, and
disheartening.

> ------
>
> But on the other hand, to me, the whole inkjet-shame issue all
> relates to Print Permanence. Isn't it just that simple? Doesn't it
> simply come down to investment confidence? It's not that inkjet
> printing, in-and-of-itself, is a shady process. It's just that there is
> a cultural, societal belief (mostly not unfounded), that inkjet prints
> have permanence issues. Who wants to risk buying something
> that's going to fade in ten years, so that that original purchaser
> can't resell it and make money?

The permanence issue *is* still a fair issue, beyond the question of investment protection.  I think people
really do worry that their beloved artworks will just go away...It scares them.  And given the ongoing
discussions on this list, permanence is *still* an issue.  This fear is no doubt compounded by the fact that
the original inkjet prints (iris) were sold as stable, and they were not.  Once bitten, twice shy.

> ----
>
> This post doesn't really nail what I 'm trying to say, but I just got
> up, and it's early, and I'm sitting here with Jon Cone in our
> underwear, outside of Cleveland, drinking coffee and scratching
> ourselves. I'll be awake later. Sorry.

I think you have made fine points which are well presented, thank you.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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