Digital BW, The Print

Hello Tyler,

>I have a great deal of respect for Brooks as not only a voice for 
>high standards and integrity in photography, but as an artist.
>I do however take very slight issue with him about this. 
>...because someone does limited editions does not necessarily mean 
>they are strategically creating artificial scarcity...
>...gallery/sales people...some were insistent, I decided I would
>meet them part way. I pick a high number...

Very good point.  As usual you bring a mature and balanced viewpoint
to our discussions.


>The roll between artists and sales entities is adversarial enough, 

Did you mean "roll", or "role"?  (not trying to be your 7th grade
English teacher, just want to be sure of your meaning <g>)


>...need to find ways for us to work together. They don't seem to 
>be backing down on this issue, so this is what I've settle on for 
>now.  I can't say I'm 100% comfortable with it, but as I said, we 
>have to pick our battles.

Seems like a very good compromise, but am glad to know you aren't 100%
comfortable with it.


>They don't seem to be backing down on this issue...
>...some buyer needs the comfort...

This seems to be the crux of it: the buck stops (starts?) at the
bottom.  The dealer's position is understandable.  All the pursuation
in the the world on them won't change anything as long as the customer
demands it (although most certainly the dealers have helped create
this customer mind set).  Seems like the only way to break the cycle
is to slowly, over time, educate the buyers.  I want to put some sort
of statement about it on my web site, probably with a link to Brook's
page.  

I find Brook's approach to it (editions, printings, etc) a bit
over-wrought.  I understand and agree with his point that a treatment
of an image can change and therefore can be considered a new edition,
but to actually carry that into a numbering system seems a bit over
the top.  Simple record keeping is already enough of a challenge, that
would make it worse.  But I guess it works for him.

I sometimes experiment with different inks, papers or settings, and
have produced many different but beautiful and worthy variations. 
With Brook's system I would have to have a new edition for each
variant.  I just sequentially number my prints of an image, no matter
what size, ink, or paper.  #4 may be a portfolio print, #5 may be a
wall print, #6 may be a miniature on a different paper.  I use I-Trak
to keep a record of every print and everything about it (#, date,
size, ink, paper, customer name, etc).  If I can manage to leave this
information behind when I leave, it will be available to anyone who
deems something worthy enough to look up.

Brook's approach also seems to eliminate something that may be 
important to a customer: having some sense of where his print fits in
the artist's output.  A print that is labeled #3 of printing #2 of
edition #3 gives no real indication of how many prints have been made
at that point. One would have to look up his records to figure it out.
A simple sequential number, such as #17, tells that very clearly. 
Also, knowing that it's in the 3rd edition implies that it's different
in some way than one in the 1st and 2nd editions, but it doesn't tell
you how it's different.  You would still have to go look up Brook's
records to find out.  So where is the advantage?

If a collector needs bragging rights with his rival, the discussion
down at the club might get pretty convoluted.  A sequential number
approach would keep it simpler.  Also when it's time to place a value
on a print...seems to me that sequential numbering could satisfy those
dealer/collector needs as much as limits.  

As for the "vintage" concept, someone told me yesterday that at a
gallery in L.A., vintage print sales are big, and that "vintage"
prints are defined as prints made during the first 5 years of an image
being shot.   Hmmm...does it make a difference if the artist made
5,000 prints during those first 5 years?   Perhaps with simple
sequential numbering, anything with #10 or less might be considered
more valuable...or maybe just a continuously graduated scale, like
those old Buick hydromatic transmissions...

One of those things that will probably never be resolved to everyone's
satisfaction.  It all seems terribly artificial.  But I suppose
collecting and valuating anything is artificlal.  If there were no
artificial system of valuating things then maybe nobody would buy
anything...at least not as something that would increase in value. 
People would only buy art to enjoy it.  Imagine that.


>It's hard enough trying to get anyone to look at landscape work 
>these days...

Can you elaborate on this, I'm surprised by it. 


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm