Really, please explain? Most people I know don't want to be. Also, how is technology letting them do so?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
But once again, these are different prints. He's not coming out with more of the 11x14" Dye Transfer prints, he's making something new. If there are ten of the Dye Transfer prints at 16x20" and there are now twenty-five ink-jets of some of the same images at 30x40 how are they the same?
Jamie123
Veteran
Not necessarily. A couple of years ago I was surprised at the quality of Avedon prints at Gagosian's booth at Art in Basel. They looked very 'fresh' (for lack of a better word). Only after I read the fine print I saw that they were new prints by the Avedon estate.
In any case, you're right, editions are a way to make work more affordable while still allowing the artist to make some money.
And to be honest, whoever buys a piece of art solely as an investment does not really deserve to own it. At least that's my opinion.
I agree, but that's not how the world works unfortunately.
Richard G
Veteran
If I had number 4 of a limited print edition of 50, and later found that my chosen artist was doing well and had a run of 500 photographic reproductions of number 6 of the same print, I would still have a limited edition of the print. If you bought one of the new photographic reproductions, you would not have a limited edition print. The value of my print may drop, if signed somethings out of the artist's studio are greater in number, but more likely my limited edition print goes up in value. It should work for photography too.
thegman
Veteran
I can't comment on the statement that everyone wants to be an artist, I don't. I do think technology lets them though.
Not everyone can be a sculptor, or a musician, or indeed a painter. Anyone can be a photographer, as the technology makes it very easy indeed. Of course whether they are any good is still a matter of skill/talent/whatever, but the technical aspects are taken care of in the way that they are not for many other art forms.
The barrier to entry for sculpting is pretty high, the barrier to entry for photography is a tenner for a camera.
sparrow6224
Well-known
As long as we treat art as a commodity we'll have disputes like this. And we'll have an ever diminished understanding of what moves an artist to create. and we'll have less and less vigorous, demanding, complex art. We'll have lines at museums with $25 ticket prices and people walking around with earphones having it all explained to them and heading as quickly as possible to the gift shop to pick up the middling finery on which the art has been reprinted, having all together no actual direct experience or relationship with what they're seeing or the people who made it. And the museums (similar word to "mausoleums") will grow ever larger. And the curators ever more precious. And the auction houses ever more shady. We (as a culture) can no longer tolerate the insistent presence of an object that cannot be owned or used or profited from, and the commodification of such objects, ie art itself, is a way of diminishing art's power. Eggleston doesn't give a ****, he made it and is through and will to enjoy the money. His experience, what mattered to him, was in the moments of discovery when he shot the picture, processed the film, made and worked on the prints. It's a private experience. But it's a public treasure, not of the monetary kind, and it's the rest of us who should rethink our positions.
sparrow6224
Well-known
A shorter version: there is no question that figures like $547K for a digitial print or $54million for a Van Gogh transform the meaning and the potential for meaning in works of art. and not in the least for the better, or for the deeper, or for the more human or divine. If you pick up a beautiful stone at the beach and find a particular joy in the discovery, and then someone tells you it's worth $50,000, you might well continue to feel joy but it will be of entirely different and less valuable kind.
So the guy who's whining about his investment: screw him.
So the guy who's whining about his investment: screw him.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Reminds me why not to buy prints.
L Collins
Well-known
Well said. I'be tired of the "Art World" and the commodification and vulgarization of creativity. It's probably why I enjoy naive art (I.e. made by people who haven't been academy trained and don't consider themselves "artists.") untouched by the judgment of those given the power to dictate taste and determine monetary value.
Jamie123
Veteran
Everybody can be a sculptor or a painter or even a musician. There's an abundance of sculptures, paintings, and music out there that required no technical skill whatsoever. Some of it is good, some of it is bad.
Photography is the easiest way to arrive at something that can be called a picture but it is not necessarily easier to make art with a camera than with any other medium.
Jamie123
Veteran
While something like this would never dicourage to me to buy prints, I have to say that, personally, I have mixed feelings about the act of collecting. There is something fetishistic about it that troubles me, yet if I'm honest, I must admit that my own photography is basically driven by the desire to collect.
If I had the money I would probably buy some prints of stuff I like simply as a means to be able to look at them and to support the artist.
I do buy quite a lof of photo books and one could say that it's a collection but it's really just out of necessity. I used to go to the book store a couple of times a week and just look at all the books I liked. After a while I noticed that some books had disappeared and I only then realized that photo book editions are limited and that they won't be available forever. That's when I started buying them.
See that is where the argument fails though (in bold)... it's the same in painting or sculpture. Anyone can do it, they just might not be good. I think photography gets a bad rap regarding its ease of use... but to do it well takes a lot of time, work, and talent.
mugent
Well-known
thegman is correct, anybody can be a photographher, I'd go as far as to say anyone can be a good photographer, competency in the field of photography is very easy, greatness is near impossible. Competency in sketching, painting,sculpture is much more difficult.
Maybe in the days of cyanotypes etc.., the difference was much less, but these days digital cameras do everything but select the scene. A paintbrush is still pretty primitive.
The technology in photography has made is accessible to everyone, the same cannot be said for other crafts.
I would argue that a badly painted stick figure is equal to a badly made photograph. You cannot polish a turd, even with technology.
gns
Well-known
FYI...
A dye transfer of the red ceiling image sold today at Christie's for $363,000, almost exactly the same price the large ink jet print of that image brought at the earlier auction.
A dye transfer of the red ceiling image sold today at Christie's for $363,000, almost exactly the same price the large ink jet print of that image brought at the earlier auction.
Jamie123
Veteran
I wouldn't go as far. Depiction is much easier to do with photography than with painting. A photograph of an object, even a bad one, is much better suited for an ebay auction than a bad painting of it.
But getting hung up on depiction misses the point. A highly accurate photorealistic painting is not better art than one that is less accurate.