From: tripspud ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/29/04-05:27:18 PM Z
Message-id: <>

Hi Bob,

       In summary, for working photographers, there is no general
agreement, on the adoptation of edition numbering that was
tranplanted from other media, woodcuts, silkscreen, etc., where
the 'original' is always distroyed.



Bob Kiss wrote:

> I was away when the "edition" thread was going on but I am catching up. I
> was THRILLED to see that there were no real objections to the idea of
> editions. So many things that we buy in our daily lives have their prices
> (and investment values) established by controlling the supply part of the
> supply/demand curve such as the gasoline in my car, the gold and diamond in
> my wife's engagement ring, prescription anyone old enough to
> remember the artificially created "coffee shortage" that drove prices up
> with the end result that they never quite returned to their original level?
> I am happy that I didn't find anyone who lived in the ivory tower of calling
> photo print editioning "not real world" when the real world is rife with
> controlled supply. And though I create photos out of love, I gotta eat so I
> sell them.
> Happily, most everyone seemed to agree: First think carefully about what
> you want to do with a given negative/image, state or disclose it honestly,
> and then stick to it. If you're not sure, say, "Other editions may be made
> in other sizes/media" or, as so many suggested, just don't sell your prints
> as limited editions.
> There was a similar thread in 1998 when I first joined the list. I had just
> sat down at the computer after spending four hours cleaning glass plate
> negatives of Barbados, made between 1880 and 1937, for which I am the
> archivist/conservator. I pointed out that I had always been taught NOT to
> destroy negatives due to their intrinsic value as historical documents
> regardless of their original purpose (such as the very collection on which I
> was working). Gallery owners and dealers in NYC that I knew had their
> photographers retire the negatives to a vault for 100 years. Unless there
> are serious and sudden improvements in medical science it is unlikely that
> any of us will be around to make more prints at that time but the negatives
> will be available for historical, sociological, and other forms of research.
> And if anyone does a posthumous edition, it has been proven that these
> re-prints actually promote and increase the value of the originals made "by
> the artist" by raising the consciousness of the collectors. This certainly
> protects the (estate of) the original collector's investment.
> It isn't ego. Your work can't be evaluated by future generations if it
> isn't there and there is no guarantee that the prints will survive the
> diaspora or be available. So, store those negs, don't destroy them.
> Please check my website:
Received on Thu Jul 29 17:27:06 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 08/13/04-09:01:12 AM Z CST