RE: Editioning ... and Unique Works of Art

From: Rocky Boudreaux ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/07/04-09:12:06 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Well I finally need to speak up.
The idea of one print from a negative certainly is an outrageous idea.
The idea of a limited edition in my opinion is just that "limited".
Skirting around the issue by making it in different sizes, methods etc. is
just plain dishonest.
I handle this issue by furnishing a certificate with each numbered print
stating the number in the edition, and the particular print number.
The certificate also states that the image will only be printed in that
medium and in that size or sizes.
 Also included is a statement that 4 artists proofs will also be made.
Then I sign it.
Yes it makes me libel and it should.
I am obligated to those who spend their money for my work.
It comes from "high ethical standards".
To me all this different size, medium etc. Is like saying oh I didn't know
that was going to sell that well.
Pick your bed and lay in it.
An old friend taught me "figures don't lie but liars figure".
Quit figuring and be up front about your work.,
Tell it like it is, it will help everything and everyone in the long run.

My opinion - it's worth what you paid for it.


 -----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Reddig []
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Editioning ... and Unique Works of Art

I'm interested to know where "collectors" get the idea that a photographer
will only do one print with a negative and never use it again. That is just
so insane to me. Why do we make good archival quality negatives if we are
expected to destroy them after printing them once? That's like a painter
never using the same color twice or the same brush or the same pair of hands
to make a painting. Collectors are asking way too much if they think I am
going to make one print and that's it. That's taking away an integral
aspect of photography. One of the amazing qualities of photography is the
numerous ways a single image can be printed and interpreted by the artist.
The image on the negative is not the final image. It can be manipulated and
interpreted by the printing of it. And when I grow and change over the
years I will change how I see an image and I will print it differently and
it will become a completely different piece of art work. With just as much
standing in my mind as the first print. And the final product will still be
unique (unless I print 20 of them exactly the same).

Excuse my rant, but I was very frightened by the suggestion that we destroy
our negatives after printing them once to achieve "uniqueness".


On 7/7/04 3:06 AM, "Bill William" <> wrote:
> Well, I think the term EXACTLY is subject to wide
> interpretation... If I were collecting, I would be happier
> (more comfortable) to know that I had the only print made
> with that particular negative and the creator had either
> destroyed or sealed up the negative(s) created to produce
> it. Additionial prints made and labled for the
> photographer's exhibitions and publications, if within
> reason, so marked and properly controlled would be in my
> mind acceptable, if that data was freely availible.
> Then not only the print but the collector also, would be
> "unique".
> Well that is kind of my ideal.
> How about other photographers turned collectors?
> I guess we doing ALT Photography really have a choice to
> do straight regular (or even digital) in unlimited runs,
> and then so called "unique state" prints in Alt Photo
> media...
> But for me, were I a collector, I think nothing would beat
> a truely one of a kind work of art!
> (Except perhaps. one that sells easier and for more
> money!)
> Editioning is a kind of compromise between the two
> extreams and as such it is only of true value when the
> editions are in fact "limited".
> Ray
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
Received on Wed Jul 7 09:15:34 2004

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