Chuck Close -- Deguerotypist

[David A. Goldfarb]

The John Dugdale situation is interesting. Daniel Levin mainly thinks of himself, I gather from speaking with him at his albumen workshop, as a color printer. He learned to make albumen prints for John Dugdale and has become a very proficient albumen printer, but I don't get the sense that he begrudges John Dugdale full credit for the vision behind their collaborative work.

[Scott Davis]

I suppose as someone who mostly uses a lab to process my E-6, and uses a lab to make RA4 prints for me as fine art, that those might be considered collaborative images. I hesitate to use that exact term for commercial work. Even though I might be given a brief, or a creative concept, my results are under my control and an expression of my interpretation and creative vision; I work as a creative partner in commercial imaging. Under many countries Copyright Laws, collaborative works fall under different rules.

It also seems like this could be taken in many directions. Did I collaborate with Schneider and Shen-Hao because they made the gear that made it all possible (for me)? Should I credit Kodak and Fuji for producing such great films that I can realize my creative vision? I cannot imagine making all my own gear, nor even my own film (or plates), though maybe I am just an artist with a camera. I don't want to imply that Jerry Spagnoli was simply a replacement for a lab, especially that there is nothing automated nor simple about the chemical processes he accomplishes.

The expression of a creative vision is the artistic aspect of a work of art. Any people that help you achieve that deserve recognition and thanks for making that possible. I draw the line at giving co-authorship, though I suppose everyone else will make their own determinations.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

Gordon-

I meant specifically collaborate in the sense that Chuck Close and Jerry Spagnoli collaborated, or in the sense of two artists sharing an idea and working together to accomplish that idea - not in the sense of taking ones color work to a lab for printing, or using someone's manufactured tool. At what point, if ever, do you draw the line and say "this is my idea"? Have you ever been confronted with this situation?

[Caroline Matthews]

Why Can't People Spell On This Forum? Idiots!!!

[Ted Harris]

Gordon-

I meant specifically collaborate in the sense that Chuck Close and Jerry Spagnoli collaborated, or in the sense of two artists sharing an idea and working together to accomplish that idea - not in the sense of taking ones color work to a lab for printing, or using someone's manufactured tool. At what point, if ever, do you draw the line and say "this is my idea"? Have you ever been confronted with this situation?

I frequently scan and print for others and I also do a lot of work on some of the images for publication in View Camera. When doing this sort of work I never think in terms of it being "my idea" rather, my goal is always to do my best to see that the final image is what the artist who entrusted it to me intended. I have a different mindset when working like this than I do when working on my own images ... I am totally focused on making the reproduced image resemble the original as closely as possible or the finally printed image mirror the original transparency as closely as possible.

With my own work, I have my own mental image as I made the exposure and that influences me in very different ways. Sometimes, when printing for others, I will ask the artist specific questions about how he/she wants the final print. I prefer to work from a proof that I discuss with them. Nonetheless it is their work. That doesn't mean that I am not often proud of what I have accomplished in bringing out the image.

The cover of the March-April 2006 issue of View Camera was a nude by Peter Gowland. To create that cover I was working with Peter's recollections of what it should look like, several old, bad reproductions and the original 40 year old Ektachrome 8x10 transparency .... now with many scratches from much handling, some registration pin marks and some color shift. I worked long and hard to "get it right" and Peter commented that he had never seen it printed better. For me, his words were a great compliment. It was, is, and will always be his work but his acknowledgement of how I brought the image back to what he, the artist, wanted to see, meant a lot. I suspect Jerry Spagnoli feels the same way.

[Scott Davis]

I frequently scan and print for others and I also do a lot of work on some of the images for publication in View Camera. When doing this sort of work I never think in terms of it being "my idea" rather, my goal is always to do my best to see that the final image is what the artist who entrusted it to me intended. I have a different mindset when working like this than I do when working on my own images ... I am totally focused on making the reproduced image resemble the original as closely as possible or the finally printed image mirror the original transparency as closely as possible.

With my own work, I have my own mental image as I made the exposure and that influences me in very different ways. Sometimes, when printing for others, I will ask the artist specific questions about how he/she wants the final print. I prefer to work from a proof that I discuss with them. Nonetheless it is their work. That doesn't mean that I am not often proud of what I have accomplished in bringing out the image.

The cover of the March-April 2006 issue of View Camera was a nude by Peter Gowland. To create that cover I was working with Peter's recollections of what it should look like, several old, bad reproductions and the original 40 year old Ektachrome 8x10 transparency .... now with many scratches from much handling, some registration pin marks and some color shift. I worked long and hard to "get it right" and Peter commented that he had never seen it printed better. For me, his words were a great compliment. It was, is, and will always be his work but his acknowledgement of how I brought the image back to what he, the artist, wanted to see, meant a lot. I suspect Jerry Spagnoli feels the same way.

Ted- thanks for your response. This is more along the lines of what I was getting after, and it gives me a better perspective on the Chuck Close/Jerry Spagnoli situation.

[Bill_1856]

Why Can't People Spell On This Forum? Idiots!!!

Caroline, I believe that it was either W. Eugene Smith or Eliot Erwitt who said that one of the basic laws of photography is that there is NO correct way to spell Daguerre. (Actually, I looked it up and then screwed it up when typing it. D'oh!)

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon-

I meant specifically collaborate in the sense that Chuck Close and Jerry Spagnoli collaborated, or in the sense of two artists sharing an idea and working together to accomplish that idea - not in the sense of taking ones color work to a lab for printing, or using someone's manufactured tool. At what point, if ever, do you draw the line and say "this is my idea"? Have you ever been confronted with this situation?

Hello Scott,

My second copyright challenge came in the form of an attorney in a band that decided the CD print package and cover I put together for the band was collaborative due to the band giving me a concept of what they wanted. The main idea behind that is a true collaborative work falls under different copyright guidelines. What happened was that went to arbitration, and it ended in my favour. In professional photography (or design) situations, you need to be very careful about ever using that term.

I think perhaps your usage of the term collaborative does not quite fit with how I use it. In my work, that is a legal description that impacts the ownership of copyright. It does not matter how many people I work with, or what the concept, brief or idea stated; when I pushed that shutter button, it became my idea.

I highly value the people I work with, from art directors to stylists to assistants and other designers. In many ways these are the people who make it all possible to realize a creative vision. Some images might never happen without the help of others. They deserve recognition, but (legally) not copyright.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Scott Davis]

Gordon- I understand your distinction, and you're right, I'm not using it in the legalistic sense you are speaking of. Unfortunately, there isn't a good alternative word that means "Collaboration in a legal/copyright sense" vs. "Collaboration in an artistic synergy sense". I'm not talking about the legal sense - I'm talking about the creative sense of collaboration.

I would certainly distinguish the assistants/hired hands/models/crew kind of collaboration from something like the Chuck Close/Jerry Spagnoli collaboration. Working with assistants who help achieve an image is different in that you are still directing them, and you are compensating them financially at the time of their effort for services rendered, to which they have agreed to surrender future claim upon the value of the work you do.

In my way of seeing it, the Chuck/Jerry thing is more of a gray area, because while Chuck had the idea of putting his friends in front of the lens and photographing them in Daguerrotypes, I'd feel fairly confident that without Jerry's involvement, those images might not even exist, because it was specifically Jerry's vision of how to execute these images that Chuck bought into. Obviously, Chuck and Jerry had an agreement that was amenable to both that this was Chuck's ouvre.

[tim atherton]

sometimes it just comes down to what is essentially a power balance.

Chuck Close is an artist with a fairly major international reputation. Jerry Spangoli isn't.

However amicably they may work things out and however friendly their collaboration, that's the reality of it.

[JW Dewdney]

Not to drag on a moot point - but let's just reverse the roles in order to illustrate that this has nothing to do with fame or power. If Mr. Spagnoli had hired Mr. Close to process the Daguerrotypes and the whole idea was Mr. Spagnoli's - it seems to me the credit would go to HIM (Mr. Spagnoli) with Mr. Close getting a possible credit as a technician.

Does that not make sense? Why is this so hard for people to fathom? Does a construction contractor get the credit for designing a building if they're faithfully following (esp. since they are under contract to do so) a set of drawings produced by an architect - since "they're the one's who ACTUALLY built it"??

sometimes it just comes down to what is essentially a power balance.

Chuck Close is an artist with a fairly major international reputation. Jerry Spangoli isn't.

However amicably they may work things out and however friendly their collaboration, that's the reality of it.