Digital BW, The Print

> From: hill14701 <hill14701@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:10:29 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] limited editions? why bother
> 
> 
> 
> Limited editions in any number are a rational reason why photography is the
> bastard child 
> of the artworld. 

Wow this is a  bit much.  Because, unlike the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel
or the Mona Lisa, a photographic image today is readily replicable, it is a
rational precursor that photography today requires a covenant of copy
limitation in order to be taken seriously as art.  Some photographs have
sold for very "important prices".  The important, older, scarcer items
continue to appreciate in price.  Photography is still very new.

> 
> 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.

So you print and sell just one image and covenant that it is 1 of 1.

That's fine if it pays the bills but the vast majority of 1 of 1 artists in
history were poor and their pieces didn't attract significant value until
after their death.  Depends on what you are after.  I don't know a single
artist that doesn't want to feed his or her family.  Photography has the
advantage of allowing artists to produce more than one but still (by
covenant) a finite number of prints and to lower the price point, better
increasing their chances of putting bread on the table.  In this respect,
photography is a godsend for the artist.

> 
> 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.

This is a bit naïve.  If this were the case, photography as commercial art
would not exist at all - it would not be commercially profitable.  Inkjet
production techniques still produce beautiful prints and if they are
durable, scarce (by covenant or better by actuality) and valued they can be
worth a lot of money.

> 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?

Of course I would buy a limited edition print.  To not do so would likely
deny yourself and, if collectively so, all others from the existence of
tradable photography.  Either we would all price most of us out of the
market - owning photography would, like the ownership of the great paintings
even when they were new, become solely the domain of the extremely wealthy -
or most photographers couldn't pay their bills and begrudgingly would go off
to do something else.  The ability to produce multiple copies but limited by
covenant helps us all - both the person who would like to own and the person
who would like to sell.

> 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?
> 

Ah the elite "artiste"!  Each to their own.  Many can find a sensible middle
ground that pays the bills (and allows them in today's economic world to
live from their passion).