Re: Editioning

From: Craig Zammiello ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/04/04-09:00:14 PM Z
Message-id: <00fc01c4623c$31c23ef0$0200a8c0@Downstairs>

> Hi Craig.
> Are you a taxonomist?

Hi Ray,
Amateur taxonomist, theraphosid spiders and centonid coleoptera...
Mainly full time printer, etching and obsolete photomechanical processes...

> I wonder, is there a special term to indicate not that a
> piece of work is not simply "limited" or "editioned", or
> that it is limited to say x number of one size or process
> type, but that in fact you have not made any other
> existing prints with the same or essentially identical (or
> an extreamly similar) negative and that the eyes of any
> average beholder, having access to everything you have
> ever printed, would witout exception claim: "This piece of
> artwork is unique!"

I would use the term mono"type" in the above situation. It is intended to
mean one print, in and of itself.
I guess we have to understand that all of these are just semantics and are
frequently changed by whatever standards that seperate people in seperate
domains like to apply. I can only speak in regard to the so called "blue
chip" limited edition print world, not to be snobby, but the rules are
usually followed, or you are quickly looking for business.

> I was taught once that something that is "unique" does not
> exist in variations.

I guess this is where the term "monoprint" would come in handy, that being a
"unique" version of a "print" series.
In the print world this tends to mean that the artist has touched the print
with unique marks, thus making it a seperate entity from other similar
images utilizing a common matrix.. I'm not sure how this may or may not
relate to the world of limited editioned photographs, but can only think in
terminology that it could...
Brst, Craig Z.
Received on Sun Jul 4 21:00:29 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 08/13/04-09:01:10 AM Z CST