--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
...
> >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>)
no, roal actually... sorry, you are correct, my writing skills are
preschool level.
...
> 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,
Well, I don't know if I'm breaking some state law, when I finally
decided on what to do my understanding was that I wasn't... but I'm
calling any print any size any type of an image part of the edition,
period. Similarities from press runs and all that are just irrelevant
to photography. I'll bet an edition done in the darkroom all during
the same session never precisely match anyway.. slight dodging/burning
differences, developer temp, toner exhaustion, bla bla. The whole idea
of a perfect match is silly anyway... is it great? Do you like it?
Does the fact that it precisely matches another make it art?
I also agree with Brooks that I will make a better print today than I
did yesterday, at least until senility.
> 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.
Exactly, we all have to do what works for us, that's what others are
doing and frankly getting away with a lot of crap. 1/2 inch bigger,
new edition? Is that limited?
At a certain point, if our work gets out there, we will develop a
reputation of delivering fine work and business practices with
integrity, or not.
...
>
> If a collector needs bragging rights with his rival, the discussion
> down at the club might get pretty convoluted.
Honestly Clayton, if it gets down to that, I don't think either of us
are the kind of people willing out help them much there <G>
....
> People would only buy art to enjoy it. Imagine that.
wow, don't know if I dare...
I'm deciding over the years that participation in commerce will always
require some give and take. There are the exceptions, people with
enormous talent the public MUST have, business genius etc..
But I'll bet even Neil Young gave an inch here and there.
>
>
> >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.
It just hasn't been hip for quite a while. When I was first learning,
the West coast masters were on all the walls, or even east coast guys
like Tice and Siskind.
I think a lot of bad work followed, and the reaction was that people
and art academia just lost interest in more rocks and trees. The
cultures connection to the land has become less defined as well, and
is in transition.
Here in Seattle I don't recall any major show at the photography
galleries or museums showing significant landscape work in 10 years or
more, I've certainly had trouble getting my work up, while one of my
pieces just went at a charity auction for over 3 times my normal
price, gallery owners present (I know them) giving me the thumbs up
then saying good night and good luck. I hope that didn't sound like a
boast, but to the point. I also don't mean to imply my work deserves
to be up, just that there are willing buyers.
Restaurant walls and festivals are different of course. Paul
Caponigro, probably the most significant living landscape photographer
by anyone's standard, had a show come through but it was an hour away
up in a little gallery in a tourist town, I didn't even hear about it
until it was gone. A non-event apparently.
So, you've got the fact that there are rocks and trees included, the
prints are ink instead of master darkroom prints, it's actually in
focus and not pinhole or garbage dumps or something, and there is a
lack of willingness to create scarcity...
Yikes!
A recipe for success!!
Anybody doing this, you know they must just love it when all is said
and done, or perhaps need therapy.
Tyler