The Original

[Bill Pierce]

Christies is auctioning Man Ray’s “Violon,” a nude photograph of his mistress Kiki from the back. Her torso has a shape not dissimilar to a violin and he has painted the properly positioned f holes of a violin on the print. Christies intends to ask at least $5 million for the print. This is a photograph, not an oil painting; so, there are other copies. One of them is at the Getty in California. But this is the first print, the “original” that is being auctioned. That makes it more valuable than those others.. Or does it?

When a photographer makes a series of prints over time of the same image, he usually makes small changes the he feels improve the image. When Ansel Adams originally printed some of his most well known images, Hernandez, the Redwoods, the entire tonal range of the original negatives was visible in the prints. After all, this is the man who gave us all the Zone System. In later prints the dark tones are deeper and some of the darkest ones are lost. The first prints are the work of a master craftsman. The later prints are the work of an older and wiser artist. That’s true for a lot of folks

So why do many auction houses and dealers promote “the first print” as the most valuable print? What do you think? Yes, I’m being serious. Those later prints are often better prints even from those of us who are not older and wiser artists.

P.S. You can see the image here

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/man-ray-photo-christies-auction-intl-scli/index.html

 

[ranger9]

You don't want to conflate artistic value with monetary value. The first of something is unique because there can be only one that's the first. Same with the last. (Arithmetically, the same also is true of the 8,473rd of something, but for some reason that doesn't excite people.)

And uniqueness contributes to monetary value because since there's only one of the unique thing, if two people want it they'll have to bid against each other, driving up the price. None of this has anything to do with whether the unique thing is any better than a non-unique thing. It's just supply and demand in action.

I would love it if collectors would collectively shrug and say "meh" about this auction and leave Christies holding the bag, but that's unlikely given that more and more of the world's wealth is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and some of them are so unfathomably rich that they can throw away what seem like staggering sums to us just to have something that the guy with the next slip at the yacht club doesn't have.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I would love it if collectors would collectively shrug and say "meh" about this auction and leave Christies holding the bag, but that's unlikely given that more and more of the world's wealth is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and some of them are so unfathomably rich that they can throw away what seem like staggering sums to us just to have something that the guy with the next slip at the yacht club doesn't have.

Couldn't agree more. And didn't the Leica Watch thread just get laid to rest a few days ago? Same nonsense!

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

As I crawl out from under the rock I live under and look at the picture in your link Bill, I'm struck with awe that someone would consider spending that kind of money on it.

Well stated ranger9, couldn't agree more.

 

[580/Q]

Bill,
I often revisit different versions of the same negative (back when...) and now I have often printed several different versions, at different times, of a digital file. What is interesting is that sometimes the shift in perspective leads to a much greater difference in insight than I would have expected. This is tangential to your question but essentially, I agree: the later prints are the result of the life lived between the first print and the latest.

Would that Droit de Tours were in place and the Radnitzky estate would benefit from the sale price, whatever the sum.

All the best,

Shane

 

[Wenge]

I used to tie Atlantic salmon flies for collectors, who want what they want and will pay the price.

 

[Dogman]

"Firsts" are always considered valuable references. Quality is not quantifiable by any objective measure, You can argue "bests" til the cows come home but "first" is always first.

 

[ptpdprinter]

So why do many auction houses and dealers promote “the first print” as the most valuable print? What do you think? Yes, I’m being serious. Those later prints are often better prints even from those of us who are not older and wiser artists.

Without seeing the other copies of this Man Ray photograph, it is impossible to know if this first print deserves to sell at a premium. Perhaps it is not only the first but the best.. Or perhaps it is the first but the worst. Or perhaps they are all the same. And physical condition; is there a stain or a tear? I have seen several versions of Adam's Moonrise, Hernadez and prefer the later darker ones. I don't know which are more valuable.

Here's a link to the 24 highest priced photographs. It is interesting to note that the highest price photograph, Gursky's Rhein II, sold in 2011, over a decade ago, and Gursky has "remastered" it since. He also "remastered" 99 Cent subsequent to its sale in 2007. I wonder if Gursky's "remastered" photographs would sell for more or less than the originals, and whether by "remastering" them he devalued the originals. I also wonder whether the purchasers of these 24 photographs could resell them at a profit, or even break even. Whither the photography as art market in 2022?

https://www.pocket-lint.com/cameras/...otos-ever-sold

As Joni Mitchell commented on her 1974 live album Miles of Aisles:

“That's one thing that's always, like, been a difference between, like, the performing arts, and being a painter, you know. A painter does a painting, and he paints it, and that's it, you know. He has the joy of creating it, it hangs on a wall, and somebody buys it, and maybe somebody buys it again, or maybe nobody buys it and it sits up in a loft somewhere until he dies. But he never, you know, nobody ever, nobody ever said to Van Gogh, 'Paint a Starry Night again, man!' You know? He painted it and that was it.”

Not so much for photographs, it seems.

 

[Timmyjoe]

My cynical side says this is just a way of hyping a product to try and cash in. I would value any print made by a master, doesn't matter whether it was the 1st or 32nd. Not a print I am interested in the least, but I think they are just hyping it to make more cash.

Best,
-Tim

 

[jsrockit]

Actually, this is a manipulated photo and we do not know if many were made at the time. That it was made by him and is the original of his most famous photo is why they are hoping for a record. He is a big name. Any art museum that deals in photography would love to have this.

None of us are in the collectors. market with collectors money to spend, so it is silly to say you would not buy it. Of course you would not, it goes without saying.

 

[sjones]

Chronological premium and scarcity (in this case, being the only ‘first’). As noted, it’s not the artistic quality but the historic significance (should you see any such historic significance) that arguably adds to the value. And yes, whether one likes it or not, this Man Ray photo is renowned.

In the world of publishing, first edition copies of classic books or even comics attract higher prices, especially if the first editions had a limited run. You don’t need to inveigle potential customers; they’re already out there salivating for this or that particular edition. Can you exploit such compulsions; sure, but you don’t have to fully manufacture them.

To be sure, later prints of Adam’s “Moonrise, Hernandez” were superior, at least to me and some other folks, but the very first print of this photo, if verifiable, would most likely secure a degree of value just for the sake of it being the first of a remarkably famous photo. Like a rookie card, perhaps.

As for art prices, it’s a bit of a paradox for me, because I do believe some works are priceless, let alone several million US dollars. But the ability to financially afford them raises serious questions about excessive wealth, income disparities, and conspicuous consumption, especially as so many other people, including children, suffer various privations.

But this is where we are at, perhaps late-stage capitalism (or not), whereby never mind the value of the artist’s creation, and, for that matter, never mind a physical item associated with the artist, a video of such memorabilia transmogrified into an NFT can draw US$76,000:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...ennon-1289639/

Certainly a digital photo of a famous Adam’s print officially released by his estate as an NFT could probably attract six figures or more. So things can be far more absurd than this Man Ray auction:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/11/2...ays-69-million

I will say this. As photographers, we should perhaps hesitate to argue devaluing the medium, no matter how silly or wasteful it might seem.

 

[sjones]

Oh, and one more thing…speculation and investment. My last post was centered on the collector’s mindset, but investment is probably the most prominent driving force. People are increasingly aware of an item’s potential value; eBay and other online auctions make sure that it’s harder and harder to find that cheap gem at the local garage sale.

Folks buy art the way they buy NFTs the way the buy digital currency. The use value is irrelevant; they don’t even have to like that Picasso they just dumped millions on. They might find the selling price even more absurd than you. But all they have to know is that it’s value will rise, and it will bring a profitable return on investment. This helps generate or, maybe more appropriately, fabricate demand, and the cyclical skyrocketing of price is fully engaged, unless the ‘bubble’ burst.

For many, Ansel Adams=plastics

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

What you are talking about is common in the market for fine art photography. Prints made soon after the film was exposed are worth more money than those made years later. The older prints are known in the market as "Vintage Prints." The reason usually given for the higher price of vintage prints is that they supposedly reflect the artist's intentions and vision at the time he made the exposure on film, while later prints would reflect things like the artist's own style changing over time.

 

[Hari]

Someone had a valuable Rolex on the PBS Antique Roadshow
that had not been worn.
The value would drop if it had been put on a wrist about half.
It's a crazy world !

 

[ptpdprinter]

It appears that Christie's sold another copy of the photograph less than a year ago for $475,000.

https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6311401

 

[Dogman]

And I believe Christies (or one of the other swanky auction houses) sold one of Man Ray's paintings a few years ago for well over $5 million.

 

[farlymac]

Art prices are always based on what someone will pay for the item. Just think what the very first Leica M3 would sell for. The prototypes also are very valuable, sometimes more so than the actual early production cameras. Those things are unique as each one is an item that has it's own particular characteristics. Later production models are not as unique, and even show variations in build (Double Stroke versus Single Stroke for one), with the DS version being more desirable. So why should an original photo print not be worth more than the later ones? It's still the very first image made from the negative, showing what the photographer captured when he envisaged how it should look. Subsequent copies with their variations then become subjective to the likes of the viewer as to their desirability, thus setting the market price. Sure, an original first print might not be to your liking, but it still has an intrinsic additional value due to being the very first one.

PF

 

[Pál_K]

As for art prices, it’s a bit of a paradox for me, because I do believe some works are priceless, let alone several million US dollars. But the ability to financially afford them raises serious questions about excessive wealth, income disparities, and conspicuous consumption, especially as so many other people, including children, suffer various privations.
…

There will always be large disparities in wealth, in any and all societies.

Since you mentioned children and suffering, I will add that if it were not for multimillionaires, places like Childrens’ hospital in Seattle couldn’t exist, places where children with cancer can be treated and cured with no cost to the parents wouldn’t exist.

The few milionaires that I’ve come to realize I’ve known, I didnt know about the extent of their wealth until maybe after 10 years of friendship - they acted and lived like average working-class people. No fancy cars, no big houses, no expensive toys or vacations. Anyway, I’m less worried about well-known millionaires buying art or watches than I am with their control over media, news, propaganda, and censorship.

—

As to the topic - yes, I believe the original does have an inherent value that can’t be denied. Yet, later re-imaginations by the original artist surely suggests the later image to be more to his or her liking. However, that is something personal perhaps only to the artist. For us viewers, we at least have the luxury of deciding which version we like best.

 

[sjones]

No, there are actually variations of wealth disparities, experienced even within the same country over periods of time. I’m well versed in the economic realities of the world, and the notion that such unjust distribution is divinely preordained or somehow organically inevitable is myopic at best. We as humans allow through our own collective volition a system that generates widespread poverty and excess materialism. Toss in institutionalized racism, and it’s an ugly mess.

So really, why should I thank millionaires for any Children’s Hospital in a wealthy, industrialized country that doesn’t even offer universal healthcare? The capitalists create a structural deficiency based on a system that deliberately encourages avarice and Darwinist barbarism then want self-gratifying praise for providing an insufficient elixir. Don’t get me wrong, we need philanthropy in this country, and thus we must be grateful for it, but that’s the problem, we shouldn’t have to need it. Students buying a teacher a car isn’t a feel good story; on the contrary!

And I’m not attacking any one particular millionaire; I’m sure there’s some swell rich people out there (millionaires, how quaint these days). And I’m not arguing for absolute equalization or, God forbid, communism, but with US CEOs of the top 350 firms making 200 to 300 times more than their average workers, there’s room for some converging movement, especially as this ruinous gap continues to grow unabated. Is 1,000 times more than the average worker or a million times more acceptable?

Ultimately, I’m just not going to tolerate excuses for a system that can concurrently produce a person worth nearly US$180 billion while more than 12 million children face food insecurities. That’s morally untenable. A system that requires gross exploitation of workers, particularly overseas, for it to be sustainably feasible, and one that inextricably activates centralized accumulation at the expense of the vast majority. Without “socialist” government intervention and unions, our country would be dominated by only a couple monopolies (some argue that we’re already there).

But we can’t raise wages, yell the capitalist defenders, because it will tank the company. Yeah, well, if you have system that can’t provide livable wages, then maybe you need to think of another way altogether. Or, as a really simple start, at least stop referring to corporations as persons for the love of all Gods! Seriously, America prioritizes property over people, this is not even remotely debatable---I’m an eye witness, I’ve got empirical proof!

World history has immutably proven that wage disparities are one of the key factors to failed states, stirring sociopolitical unrest and installing oligarchic plutocracy over any semblance of democracy that might have existed. You better be worried why someone can lay down millions on a photo, or a baseball card for that matter, while towns across America stagnate and workers (often with multiple jobs) struggle to attain basic sustenance due to paltry wages because these are not unrelated issues.

Oh but yes, I am worried about the rightwing propaganda and disinformation machines that has consumed so much of this country, allowing outright fascism to become all the rage.

And just preemptively for anyone in general, please don’t bring up the iPhone and its codependency on capitalism. The blessed thing is made in Communist China and it benefitted significantly from government R&D.

I'm out...enjoy!

 

[willie_901]

My cynical side says this is just a way of hyping a product to try and cash in. I would value any print made by a master, doesn't matter whether it was the 1st or 32nd. Not a print I am interested in the least, but I think they are just hyping it to make more cash.

Best,
-Tim

I can't think of a financially successful contemporary artist that doe not spend a lot of time on marketing or hire an agent to marketer them.

It is east to say commercial success has nothing to do with artistic success. While there is nothing wrong with making art for the personal joy of creation, personal satisfaction does not fund making art.

Because artistic success means different things to each artist, the phrase artistic success is practically meaningless. However, financial achievement is objective. An artists financial success is an indisputable metric for artistic success. Of course financial success is a limited objective metric because it only applies to the short term.