|
| |
|
Photography’s Role in the Art World
[ Contents ] [
Articles ] [
Members ] Resources ] [Sponsors
]
[
Digital Jury Services for Artists ] [
Join the Forum ]
[ Support the Forum ] [ Consulting
] |
|
|
|
Originals, Prints and Reproductions
Photography’s Role in the Art World
By Larry Berman and Chris Maher |
|
Download this
article as a PDF file to print out |
|
Scroll down for the closing paragraph of
the
Sunshine Artist Magazine article we are
refuting |
Introduction
From the beginning, photography has been attacked by those who saw it as a
threat to other art mediums. The art critic Charles Baudelaire
(1821-1867) called photography “the refuge of failed painters with too
little talent.” He went on to declare: “If photography is allowed
to supplement art in some of its functions, it will soon have supplanted
or corrupted it altogether.” |
| We recognize that despite photography’s
wide acceptance as a fine art medium, there are still issues that some
people struggle with. The very concept of multiple originals can be
perplexing. Painters and other artists that produce work that can not be
identical often try to insist that photography should be held to similar
limitations. The argument seems to be that, unless photographs are
restricted in some way, they are not original, but are a form of
reproduction. |
Ask The Experts What They Think
As lifelong photographers, we certainly have our own opinions about
reproductions and editions, but for this article we interviewed recognized
experts who sell fine art photography on a daily basis. Helen Wright is
the exclusive North American representative of photography giant Henri
Cartier-Bresson. Margit Erb is gallery director of the Howard
Greenberg Gallery that handles the fine art sales of the Life Magazine
archives. Kim Bourus is head of the cultural department at Magnum
Photos, the world’s most prestigious photographic agency. |
|
According to Margit Erb: “A
reproduction is a photograph of a photograph. It could mean a poster or a
reproduction in a book. But NEVER one of the prints made from the
original negative. It is very important in photography, as it is in other
art fields, that the provenience be explained upon the sale. We explain
exactly where the print came from.” |
|
Those who insist that photographic prints should be
produced in limited editions propose a different form of restriction. It
would be good to remember the origins of the ‘tradition’ of editioning
photographs. Helen Wright says: "Limiting
editions came into being from the dealers when they first started selling
photographs in the 1970's. They [photographers] had all graduated with
degrees in photography. Life Magazine and Look Magazine had folded and
what were they to do, they were photojournalists. They would show their
stuff to the dealers who had also just begun selling photographs. The
dealers said that in order for us to sell your work, you have to make
limited editions so we can ask for more money. So there we are, it's as
simple as that." |
|
Ms Erb adds:
“As for limited editions, the older prints are not
editioned because Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Steichen or any of the other
photographers from that period weren’t editioning. Modern photographs
would have more monetary value if they were in editions, but that wouldn’t
make them any less of an original photograph. EDITIONING IS A MARKETING
TOOL that contemporary photographers started doing as early as the
1970’s to basically make their prints more rare. It has nothing to do with
originality. There are photographers like William Klein, Henri
Cartier-Bresson and Gordon Parks, that were printing in the 1950’s and are
still selling prints today, that don’t edition. Yet Cartier-Bresson’s
photographs continue to increase in price and break auction records
despite the fact that they’re not editioned.” |
|
Another restriction that is discussed is whether or not a
photographer should be required to print their own photographs. Kim
Bourus says: “Magnum sells ‘Collectors
Prints’ which are first generation prints, made from the original
negative. Included are scans that are printed on a Lambda where the
photographer oversees the process to make sure they are 100% the way they
want. The photographer has ultimate control over what the image looks
like. Both processes fit the Magnum definition of an original photograph
and a ‘Collectors Print.’ The fact that the photographers themselves are
not doing the actual printing, in fact some of the photographers have
never printed, doesn’t devalue the print as it still fulfills the
requirement of the ‘Collectors Print’ as being the best it could possibly
be.” |
The Art Festivals
There has been a growing trend among art festivals to update rules for
photography in order to keep up with technology. Insisting that
photographers print their own work was a restriction that did nothing for
print quality, and was almost impossible to police. Most notably, in
contrast to what the article that this is in response to said, the
Milwaukee Art Museum’s prestigious Lakefront Festival of the Arts
dropped the “photographers are required to print their own” regulation in
2003. |
Conclusion
More changes are on the way. Digital technology has radically changed how
photographers can print their images. No longer must a photographer go
into a darkroom and work with noxious chemistry. For the photographer
skilled in Photoshop, the darkroom now consists of a computer, a monitor
and in some cases a printer. The digital files produced can either be
printed on an archival ink jet printer or taken to a service bureau and
outputted on a digital printer such as the Light Jet. |
|
Photography has always been a medium of multiple
originals. If photographers choose to edition their photographs, that is a
marketing decision that they should be free to make. And finally, no
matter what method of output they choose, the critical thing is whether
they, as artists, are completely satisfied with the presentation of their
vision? Be suspicious of those who, due to their own personal agendas,
demand restrictions on photographers. |
|
|
|
|
The Article we are
Refuting
In what would be a scathing attempt to limit the ability of photographers
to earn a living, a pen and ink artist has written an article in the April
2004 issue of Sunshine
Artist Magazine titled "In the Photographer's Own Hand, In Search
of the Definition of Original Prints". |
| In short, his position is
such that there can only be one original photograph and everything that
follows is a reproduction and should be labeled as such. The
"intellectuals" he interviewed were people, who through their own narrow
vision, support his supposition. He obviously wouldn't have called me for
my opinion because I wouldn't agree with him. I can't post the original
article as it would be a copyright violation but here is a quote from the last
paragraph: |
| "an
original photograph is that image produced by the photographer's hand,
from the photographer's negative, and signed and numbered by the
photographer on the photograph itself. if a representation is in any way a
duplication of that image - whether it is from a photocopy machine, a
digital printer or a photo lab utilizing equipment to make sure each print
is exactly the same (even if "under the artist's supervision") - it is a
reproduction. And, if an art fair allows such reproductions to be sold by
an exhibitor, it should be labeled as such." |
| |
