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/
Re: Jonathan Sobel not happy with William Eggleston's latest marketing move.
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.
Re: Jonathan Sobel not happy with William Eggleston's latest marketing move.
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.
Re: Jonathan Sobel not happy with William Eggleston's latest marketing move.
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.;)
Re: Jonathan Sobel not happy with William Eggleston's latest marketing move.
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.
Re: Jonathan Sobel not happy with William Eggleston's latest marketing move.
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
Re: Jonathan Sobel not happy with William Eggleston's latest marketing move.
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.
Re: Jonathan Sobel not happy with William Eggleston's latest marketing move.
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.
Re: Jonathan Sobel not happy with William Eggleston's latest marketing move.
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.
Re: Jonathan Sobel not happy with William Eggleston's latest marketing move.
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.