Digital BW, The Print

lyonscox wrote:

>  > > <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.

It is not that simple. (see below)

>
> 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.

If there is a problem on a mounting substrate, it is important to remove that
damaging substrate.  As long as the piece is then re-presented in a similar
manner I think one is on safe ground.

If you think that removing a 'mount' is bad, what do you say to all those
conservators, and all those museums around the world, who have 'restored'
essentially *every* Old Master painting by not only removing the old canvas
stretchers, but the actual canvas (and many times the gesso) and the original
varnishes?

Are you really saying it's better to have a work of art self destruct and vanish
for future generations because removing the mounting substrate (whether it be a
board or a canvas) would denigrate the artist's original intent?  It is not like
the works of art will no longer presented in an historically correct manner.

>
> >>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 not disagreeing with that, but this whole discussion started on what one
should do *now* regarding signing it (and therefore identifying it).

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

> I am a
> supporter of a signature (of any kind) on work for future
> authentication, period identification.
> <snip>
>
> Cleavis
>





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