Digital BW, The Print

lyonscox wrote:

> <snip>
>
> This "not dry mounting" thing is absolutely the equivalent in
> argument to archival inks.  It's the archivists pre-occupation.  I
> know personally of a museum curator suggesting removing a silver
> image from a dry mount.  To do so would have DESTROYED the value of
> the artwork from an investment standpoint.  This was an educated
> individual in conservation, NOT in the particular PHOTOGRAPHERS
> habits.  The particulars are more important in the long run.

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.

>
> Edward Weston's work is a good example.  He used a variety of backing
> boards which, therefore, are in various states.  However the shellac
> used to drymount turns out to have been THE BEST barrier from that
> era, so prints can be in fantastic condition and just need the
> attention of a good framer.

Shellac (a wet mounting technique) would be considered a very good mounting
adhesive (from a conservation perspective) as it can be 'melted' with exposure
to alcohol fumes, and therefore is easily 'reversible'.

There actually are some 'reversible' dry mounting films.  I can't remember the
name of the one I used to use, it's been over ten years.  Anyway, the mounting
'film' melted at a relatively low temperature, had no acids or substrate, and in
the future could be easily softened and removed.

>
> A note on signing...again consitency and changes are what becomes
> noted.  Atget rarely, if ever, signed things.  He was not an artist.
> Weston signed front and/or back.  Frederick Sommer for years didn't
> sign images (never on the front, it distracts) until they were to
> leave the house - therefore something unsigned gets further
> examination since his copy prints were so beautiful and were more
> often kept than returned (much to his dissatisfaction).

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.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC




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

> > <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

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]