On Sunday, March 2, 2003, at 02:09 PM, Bill Pearce wrote:
John,
The latest issue of Black and White magazine (the American one for
collectors, not the British one for photographers) addresses this in an
article advising newer collectors. according to the writer, among the
sales
gallery crowd that invented the term, the first prints are supposed to
represent the artist's vision, as they were made close to the actual
exposure.
This bothers me in several ways. First, this doesn't allow for
reflection
and reevaluation, important in the artist's process. Compare the same
piece
of music performed at times early and later in a musician's career.
Frequently, the initial performance is shallow, compared to the later.
Compared to music, the more recent print would be better, as the
artist has
lived with the image, and sees more in it.
Second, we really do need to consider how early prints were produced.
It is
entirely possible that archival considerations were not taken.
This doesn't even begin to take into account photographers who do not
print
their own work. Are Cartier-Bresson's photographs worth less because
they
were printed by someone else? And what about sculptors who produce
their
work in bronze. How many of them do theie own casting? Doesn't seem to
affect the value of the work.
The B&W article repeats the claim that the term was invented by certain
sales galleries to allow them to charge more for certain prints.
Bill Pearce
It is interesting that in music, classical at least, composers and
conductors, as well as great soloists are honored. Yet I doubt if many
even know the name of a great printer of photographs unless he/she was
also the photographer. Maybe photography is more like current rock
music where the composer is also expected to perform it.
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California, USA
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|