Digital BW, The Print

> > <snip>

Harvey,

This is a careful issue.  In my sentence there is no difference.  A 
conservator is to conserve, therefore they must know the predominant 
working habit of the artist in reference.  To remove a drymounted 
print from its mount of a photographer who ONLY drymounted is NOT 
conserving the artists work. Period.  

They are only responding to material conservation.  A like situation 
is the 'looting' of archeological sites.  A conservationist may not 
object to the removal of items, in fact may encourage it.  They 
primarily desire the opportunity to document as they remove it, 
location & condition.

To draw the equation full circle.  To remove a drymounted photograph 
from a mount of an artist who only worked that way in presentation IS 
LOOTING the site for the sake of saving some of the material.

Most art/antiques investment value is directly tied to the condition 
in relation to the time it left the artists hand.  Therefore 
collector, investor, gallery owner or conservator have a common point 
of concern from which to evaluate the work.

> The job of a museum curator is to conserve the work of art.  They 
should never care about 'investment value'.  This is (allegedly) the 
difference between a museum and a gallery.

SNIP

> Yeah, but signing one's prints in the here and now, consistently, 
makes future authentication all that much easier.  And 
authentication, of course, does not make any particular work better 
or worse, but more valuable from an investment point of view.
> 

There are works where signature is not important.  I would stress 
CONSISTENCY OF PRESENTATION is the dominating factor.  I am a 
supporter of a signature (of any kind) on work for future 
authentication, period identification.


Is any of this on topic, IMHO yes, because I will not hesitate to 
drymount an inkjet print if that's how I feel it should be 
presented.  The main cause would be a thin paper which I'm not likely 
to use though.

Cleavis