Jonathan Sobel not happy with William Eggleston's latest marketing move.

A very good read re: the market for photographic prints. While it's great that Eggleston can make more money, is this a good or bad thing for photography ? I have more sympathy with the collectors who appreciate everything about the photographic print and in fact help create the market for photographers vs those who may get into the game because it's a current art world darling ( I know, kinda judgemental).

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmo...iam-eggleston/

Guess you have to figure that living artists are unpredictable and you speculate on them, versus the dead masters whose work behaves more predictably. Sort of like start-ups versus blue-chip stocks.

Does one buy art because it's art or an investment?
If someone is worried about the value then he has no appreciation for the art.

My opinion.

I see some interesting contradictions in the article. On one hand, photographers seem to ceaselessly insist that photography is an art, like painting or sculpture, but when a photographer "throws his lot in" with artists, he's deemed a traitor by the photography world. The author adds, "There might be lots of money in the contemporary world right now, but that world is fickle.", in an article about the unpredictable (fickle?) behavior of a photographer and a resulting lawsuit by one of his collectors.

Quote:

---

Fred L:
I have more sympathy with the collectors who appreciate everything about the photographic print and in fact help create the market for photographers vs those who may get into the game because it's a current art world darling ( I know, kinda judgemental).

---

Easy to say when one is not being courted by deep pocketed contemporary art collectors.;)

I think an appreciation for the aesthetics of art or the economic worth of art (or any combination there of) are just two inherent aspects of the value of art. I know some serious collectors who love pieces in there collection so much that they would not sell them under any circumstances. BUT they are also savvy business men/women who need to insure there art, calculate its value in their net worth, factor it into their will, figure out what to do with it in a divorce etc. etc.

It's a good thing for photography. Next we'll have some other photography icon being annointed by the blue chip galleries and marketed as "Art" vs merely photography. Then another. Blur those distinctions, blur, baby. Given the low prices in the photo market that can't but help photographers.

--Darin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Jarosz

Does one buy art because it's art or an investment?
If someone is worried about the value then he has no appreciation for the art.

My opinion.

---

People do both. They do invest in art. And photography is trying hard to be art for oh so many years. Thats why there are things like limited editions of prints & etc.
No one expects that there won't be reproductions of Lady With Ermine, but there is in fact only one original Lady with Ermine. Original editions are still original editions, like with books, for example. People buy them to read, but they also buy them as collector's items.

What Eggleston did is commonplace, but I do not (very personal opinion here) think it is the right thing to do. Making subsequent editions of a different size negates the limited nature of a previously declared limited edition and so I can see why his latest giant print edition upset some people. That said, I see no real issue here unless Eggleston said of his previous edition that 'no further prints will be made.' Some photographers do say that, to ensure people are clear that the edition they are buying from is all there will ever be. Eggleston has not lied, cheated or betrayed, but at the same time he has not perhaps not demonstrated the very highest ethics that some might have (for whatever reason) expected of him.

It's bad for photography. Consider it from an outsider's point of view:

"You said you wouldn't make any more of these prints."

"I said I wouldn't make any more of that size with that printing method."

"Well I'm disappointed for spending that much money on them because I didn't understand..."

It's a mess.

In my opinion, unless the photographer makes it clear that the "limited" edition is not really limited, then it is wrong to make more prints, regardless of whether they are larger or in a different medium. From the discussions I have read, it does not appear that there is universal agreement even among those in the trade as to the meaning of a limited edition. I don't blame the buyer for being upset.

I am with Turtle. While not legally wrong, it is morally wrong.

The kiddies are cashing in though! I doubt Eggleston has a whole lot to do with these sales. I bet Eggleston does some epic signing stints before he kicks it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Fada

I am with Turtle. While not legally wrong, it is morally wrong.

---

Apparently, in some states it might be legally wrong. Some states try to enforce what "limited edition" means, though it is not clear that Eggleston was in violation.

I guess it's not too surprising that the whole "limited edition" thing with respect to photography is fraught with controversy. The art-collecting world needs scarcity, and film provides the capacity to make any arbitrarily large number of copies the photographer has the time and willingness to make. Scarcity has to be artificially enforced to suit the needs of collectors. I guess if they aren't comfortable with the pretense, they shouldn't be collecting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Jarosz

Does one buy art because it's art or an investment?
If someone is worried about the value then he has no appreciation for the art.

My opinion.

---

Inexpensive art by unknown artists bought at craft shows, gift shops, etc. is bought solely because the buyer appreciates the art. Moderately priced art by unknown artists sold through art outlets (e.g. galleries) is bought mainly for appreciation of the art but also with investment in the back of the buyer's mind. Expensive art by known artists is bought mostly for investment but with some appreciation for the art thrown in. Megabucks art is bought almost exclusively for investment. It's very little different than stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. Bragging rights might enter into it but art sold these days for megabucks usually isn't hung on the wall of someone's home, it's too valuable and insurance likely isn't available for something worth megabucks that isn't secured.

Obviously a major over-generalization subject to many exceptions (e.g. some collectors who buy for investment also are extremely knowledgeable and appreciative of the art). But very roughly accurate as far as it goes, depending of course on how one defines "inexpensive," "megabucks," "unknown," etc.

I often take more than one exposure of the same scene, as I'm sure many others do. So, I wonder how that comes into play in a situation like this thread. I mean one can simply say, "Those original limited editions came from negative #215, the new prints are from negative #216." Different negative, different snapshot in time. Does this hold water or am I wrong?

-DP

It seems to me that someone altering what they meant when they said it is being deceptive.

Things change, but if the guy changed his idea of what "limited" meant in his mind at the time he said it, then he's undermining the value of his word, even to himself. That's a moral issue, not a legal one, because it involves intentions. But if he doesn't trust his own word, it will hard for others to do so, if it affects the integrity of the product.

Behavior should be driven by that integrity. Integrity is fragile--it will vanish far sooner than any legal lines are crossed. Integrity is important even (or perhaps especially) in the rarefied atmosphere of what the very rich collect as an investment, even if it's just the integrity of the thing being collected.

Rick "noting, however, that collectible art prints are often numbered and limited only in their original size, though with disclosure" Denney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SergeiR

Original editions are still original editions, like with books, for example. People buy them to read, but they also buy them as collector's items.

---

In book publishing, a "limited edition" almost always means that that particular edition is limited, usually including some special feature: printing, case, signed, illustrated, etc. Rarely does it mean that there will never be another, different edition of the same work. In fact, if an author claimed that, I don't think anyone would believe it. (And yes, a really popular author like Stephen King could have a "limited edition" of 10,000 or more!)

Did no one read the entire article? No one but Sobel is suggesting Eggleston did anything dishonest, and no one thinks Sobel has a legitimate case. The difference in edition print sizes is beyond substantial, the printing process is different, and according to experts, there is nothing unusual about what Eggleston is doing.

Quote:

---

As Daniel Grant explains, print disclosure laws make explicit exceptions for prints of different sizes, or even just series which have different numbering. And Josh Holdeman, Christie’s international director of 20th century art, goes so far as to say that “I don’t know of any photographers who haven’t produced multiple editions of the same images”: this is undoubtedly standard practice in the art and photography world.

---

What's unusual is Sobel's lawsuit. What's at issue is Eggleston's marketing to collectors of contemporary art instead of to the photography collectors who invested in him early on.

Sooner or later someone is left holding the bag anyway. Once a photographer is in that brew of "investment" art, it's probably too late. Maybe another round or two. Like everyone
investing in gold at the moment, right at the top of the market. The next generation won't
give a damn about many of these folks. Besides, any Eggleston restrikes are likely inkjet,
and won't be regarded as having the same value to old school collectors as the original dye
tranfer prints.. . Ironically, the inkjets will probably last longer. But I don't personally care
for Egglestons work when it gets significantly enlarged. Loses a lot of the charm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

Sooner or later someone is left holding the bag anyway. Once a photographer is in that brew of "investment" art, it's probably too late. Maybe another round or two. Like everyone
investing in gold at the moment, right at the top of the market. The next generation won't
give a damn about many of these folks. Besides, any Eggleston restrikes are likely inkjet,
and won't be regarded as having the same value to old school collectors as the original dye
tranfer prints.. . Ironically, the inkjets will probably last longer. But I don't personally care
for Egglestons work when it gets significantly enlarged. Loses a lot of the charm.

---

Well, it's probably a good thing because many "old school collectors" won't be able to afford the new prints anyway. Have you actually seen the new prints, or is your opinion of them based on some other prints you might or might not have seen?

Jay - I obviously have not seen anything that's being marketed at this moment, but have
seen various digital restrikes (technically the wrong term, I know...) of older work. The shoe just doesn't fit. This is my subjective opinion, of course. But Eggleston's classic work
was off-the-cuff snapshooting. The better reproductions were dye transfer, which landed
the color and matched the relatively low quantity of detail present - it pretty much kept the rough edginess of the work intact. Lightjet C prints (which I have seen) just respond
with a "thud" for me. Too much capacity for detail which simply isn't there - and significant enlargement just creates a cheap decor look. Not like a mystical little image in
a portfolio box. And C prints have no real permanence advantage over dye transfer unless
open display is involved, which pretty much discounts the "investment" value of either.
Maybe a really good inkjet printer could keep the general look intact, but it depends on the
specific hues. I found Eggleston's medium format work especially disappointing - neither
fish nor fowl. He really needed zero onto something simple and arcane to hit the nail on the head. 35mm was ideal.

Pictures of sad clowns, or kids with big droopy eyes are my kind of Art. IMHO those Hamms beer signs with the waves in the lake that look like they move really kick @$$ :cool: Velvet Elvis, not so cool (but I'm a tough critic!)

Just redux one of those Hamm's signs twenty feet across and put it in the Miami Pop Art
fair with a twenty million dollar price tag, or take a photograph of that black velvet Elvis
rug and ask fifty grand for it - can't be any worse than a photo of a billboard. Winning is largely the art of the bluff, and not art of the eye, just as in poker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

Just redux one of those Hamm's signs twenty feet across and put it in the Miami Pop Art
fair with a twenty million dollar price tag, or take a photograph of that black velvet Elvis
rug and ask fifty grand for it - can't be any worse than a photo of a billboard. Winning is largely the art of the bluff, and not art of the eye, just as in poker.

---

I think there is an element of game theory involved in these kinds of payoffs, but I don't think poker is the best analogy for the game, which seems to have more in common with the category of games in which discovering the rules of the game is part of the game play. Poker would be more difficult if one didn't know if two Aces beats a straight flush, or the other way around, and even more so if your opponents did know.

The difference in this case is that you get to invent the rules of the game. But not much
sheer statistical chance to it. You need 250K min for a booth space and a well recognized
dealership. Need to know your potential clients. Everyone knows it's an esthetic con with winners and losers, but it can't be a business con. Have to have an established reputation for delivering the goods. Sorta a closed-loop highbrow thing for people willing to gamble big, but who are otherwise just excercising their right to conspicuous consumption. But it is a game. Once an artist loses collectable momentum, the house of cards falls. Not many are going to have recognized value in the long run. Fortunately, a lot of color photography will just plain fade. Going archival is not always a good thing.

Slightly different perspective on it - in his old age nearing death, Dali was signing stacks
of unprinted paper before even being lithographed. It infuriated collectors because they
thought it would make the value of their own collection fall. But the truth all along is that
these mass-produced reproductions were virtually worthless anyway. You go into some
Fisherman's Wharf tourist gallery, plop down a couple grand for a fancy Dali poster, which
is probably worth less than the frame itself. The dealer paid about fifteen bucks for it. If
you want to "invest" in Dali, you need hundreds of thousand of dollars to play with, or way more, and won't waste time on reproductions, signed or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

Slightly different perspective on it - in his old age nearing death, Dali was signing stacks
of unprinted paper before even being lithographed.

---

I did a limited edition book where I sent the author endsheets to sign. There were a small stack left over after production. A few years ago, he passed on, but I still have the extra sheets. Someday they might be wanted. I know of editions done for a deceased author where signatures were cut from cancelled checks and pasted into the books.

This is one way, I suppose, where it is easier to deal with dead artists; the amount of work that has come from their own hands is fixed by time.

Hard to know what the truth was concerning Dali - but at the time the mere rumor (and it
did move fast) of him signing blank sheets caused a panic. But it is known he signed his name to tens of thousands of pieces, many relatively worthless. In this case he was obviously a deservedly recognized painter; but the casual "collector" probably didn't even know the difference between a lithograph and mass-produced photolithograph. At one time
the Wall St Journal ran an article pointing out naive collecting as one of the worst forms
of investment there is - in that case they were specifically referring to Kincade, whose stuff has already collapsed in value. No mystery there.

Few things stinks worse than a dead Artist.:rolleyes:

I don't know about that, John. I can remember a few hundred times driving past that muddy feedlot across the road from Little Table Mtn, on the Madera Co side of the River.
When I was young, a couple of the young cowboys who lived there would daily board the
school bus, and the other kids would sure be pulling the windows open!

Good. I hope it finally all gets decided, one way or another – but it won't – and I don't give a fig which way it goes. A pox on all their houses. Forget it Jake, it's Art town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

I don't know about that, John. I can remember a few hundred times driving past that muddy feedlot across the road from Little Table Mtn, on the Madera Co side of the River.
When I was young, a couple of the young cowboys who lived there would daily board the
school bus, and the other kids would sure be pulling the windows open!

---

...and I can remember climbing on the sedimentary/basalt cliffs under the cross on afternoons after school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Karp

In my opinion, unless the photographer makes it clear that the "limited" edition is not really limited, then it is wrong to make more prints, regardless of whether they are larger or in a different medium. From the discussions I have read, it does not appear that there is universal agreement even among those in the trade as to the meaning of a limited edition. I don't blame the buyer for being upset.

---

Photo Biz –> Editioning

Most of my own climbing was done further upriver on the bigger Tables, but I did comb every inch of Little Table with a metal detector looking for J. Murieta's famous cache of
Wells Fargo gold which he rapidly buried on some hill on his run up to Sutter Buttes, where
he was killed. I would be worth about four hundred million at today's commodity index. No
luck, obviously. But I did get some interesting fossils, esp petrified wood. And it's up in those little caves and crannies that I first fell in love with photography. Some amazing color when the fog is in. Technically the Ione Formation. Further upriver it's capped with
two deeper Pliocene basalt layers and their own incredible lichen patches. Plenty of eagle
nests too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ROL

Good. I hope it finally all gets decided, one way or another – but it won't – and I don't give a fig which way it goes. A pox on all their houses. Forget it Jake, it's Art town.

---

Video: A Glimpse Into How the Art World Works
Interesting POV. It seems to be aimed at painters and sculptors, though.

I think there is an interesting comment in the middle of the article:

"And Gagosian, in turn, was perfectly happy to sell me a whopping great 50″x60″ print (plus frame) for $15,000. Even if I could afford that kind of money, I don’t have anywhere to put a photograph that big. But Gagosian isn’t selling the prints in the smaller sizes that photography collectors generally like."

More and more of the contemporary "Art" photographic prints are large size, often ink jet printed. It appears that "Art" collectors do not appreciate the hand-crafted contact print or optically-enlarged print.

I hope he makes a millions, and why not. No other art form seems to be bending over backwards with a twist to keep its street cred, the day photography(as an art) stops caring is the day it 'becomes' an art. My THREE cents! :-)