Digital BW, The Print

Limited editions in any number are a rational reason why photography is the bastard child 
of the artworld.  My local college gallery hosts an annual student show, and the director 
also purchases a small number of works for the permanent collection.  His one 
comment is that he pays less for photography, as it is infinately reproducable (and 
therefore not unique).  Unfortunately, this also means that he purchases cruddy paintings 
for 4X the price of one truly beautiful BW print.

Beyond that one example, what I find hysterical are printmakers (or so-called 
photographers, loosely used) who do the tiered pricing scheme.  It brings all the joy and 
excitement of being an Amway Distributer into the art community.  Seriously though, 
where do you see yourself in five years?

Maybe I am alone, but I want my work to remain singular and unique.  When I am satisfied 
with a final print, darkroom or inkjet, I destroy the negative or delete the associated files.  
I understand Brett Weston did this with a number of his images (ironed the negative to the 
back of the print), as well as holding a negative burning ceremony not wanting anyone 
else to print his negatives after his death.  That being said, I have participated in a few 
print exchanges with members of this group (so I am not militant).

Inkjet printing has degraded all unique qualities of the fine print.  While the work can look 
much better than a darkroom print, it has no value other than the materials it is printed on 
and with.  Another member has put it much more eloquently, that it is only worth what 
someone is willing to pay.  I refuse to pay more for a print because it is at the tail end of a 
limited edition run, actually I would never buy a "limited edition" print.  Seriously, would 
any of you either?  I understand the mechanics of the tiered pricing process, but I find it 
distasteful.  Besides, why not go whole-hog and make snazzy posters, t-shirts, notecards, 
mousepads, and select images on coffee mugs?  

don