Inkjet better than wet prints yet?

[tgtaylor]

It shouldn't be too hard to see the reason why the value of the photograph print has plummeted in the digital age: The photographic artist that embraced it have taken pains to “educate” the buying public that the machine print is just as good – nay better – than a “darkroom print;” that the hand work of the artist has no more value than that done by a machine.

Thomas

[Kirk Gittings]

This is how I view this subject. It comes from a long career in photography immersed in the milieu of "art photography".

The "machine" ie the camera, computer, enlarger, printer is just a tool and no more relevant to artistry than a chisel or brush. Throughout the long history of art, artistry has been defined by the control an artist exercises over the tools of art production rather than the tool itself. Sometimes those "tools" were assistants who actually did some of the painting and stone carving under the direction of the master.

Some of you may not have been around long enough to actually experience the fight for recognition of photography as an art form. It was still going strong (though waining) when I was an undergraduate at UNM in the 60's studying with Beaumont Newhall and Van Deuron Coke et al. The exact same arguments expressed now about digital processes were then aimed at analogue photography by painters, stone lithographers etc.-"Photography is not art. It is machine made" I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard that in my youth. Fortunately that ship sailed along time ago and fell off the edge of the known flat world.

The amount of control one exerts making a digital art print is extraordinary-down to a nearly microscopic level of image manipulation. But I frankly have no problem finding the artistry in analogue methods that allow for little control of the materials such as Polaroids.

[Merg Ross]

One thing to remember is that those collecting photography in 2012 are quite a different crowd from those who collected in the 1950's, 60's, 70's 80's and even 90's. This I have learned from those who make a living selling their personal photography. Values and acceptance change as a new generation makes the purchasing decisions, be they for personal or institutional collections.

As photographers, we may have a preference for process, and therefore place a different value on our work than is borne out by the present market. Process alone is no longer the determining factor of value.

However, the OP was not about value.

[tgtaylor]

Then answer the question:

If you went into, say, a furniture store and there were two seemingly identical tables, one hand-made by the artisan and the other machine made by XYZ corporation, which one would you expect to have the higher price tag?



Thomas

[Vaughn]

...Some of you may not have been around long enough to actually experience the fight for recognition of photography as an art form. It was still going strong (though waining) when I was an undergraduate at UNM in the 60's. The exact same arguments expressed now about digital processes were then aimed at analogue photography by painters, stone lithographers etc.-"Photography is not art. It is machine made" I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard that in my youth. Fortunately that ship sailed along time ago and fell off the edge of the known flat world...

Sorry, Kirk, but that ship is still plunging ahead at full steam. Perhaps not labeled as non-art, but as a lesser art and when budgets are cut, or more space in limited facilities is wanted by the painting instructors, the photo programs, along with print-making (seriography, lithography, etc) are looked at as non-essential and disposable. Humboldt State established the third photo program in the USA that was under a Department of Art. Yet even with that history, when the art historians and painters take over the department, traditional photography and printmaking are treated as an undesirable friend of a unknown relative.

[Kirk Gittings]

Vaughn, My view may be skewed because at the universities where I went to school and teach photography is king.

[Kirk Gittings]

2 of top 3 most expensive photographs of all time (Gursky) are "machine made prints" scanned film, digitally exposed C-prints run through a processor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ve_photographs

or inkjet prints for a paltry 300-500k apiece-Eggelston's inkjet prints http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/14/...on-at-auction/

Then answer the question:

If you went into, say, a furniture store and there were two seemingly identical tables, one hand-made by the artisan and the other machine made by XYZ corporation, which one would you expect to have the higher price tag?



Thomas

[Old-N-Feeble]

Sorry if this has been addressed before but...

Don't many great sculptors cast bronzes from their originals? Don't those bronzes bring in lots of revenue? Don't painters have machine prints made of their orginals and sign limited edition copies for a healthy profit? It seems that singly-printed digital prints would fall somewhere in that duplication-of-the-original realm. Sure, wet prints will always be more hands-on and likely will fetch higher prices. But... are those wet prints originals? No, not in my opinion. The film images are the originals. Wet prints are still "duplications" of those originals... they're just more closely handled by the "artist".

[Greg Lockrey]

Sorry, Kirk, but that ship is still plunging ahead at full steam. Perhaps not labeled as non-art, but as a lesser art and when budgets are cut, or more space in limited facilities is wanted by the painting instructors, the photo programs, along with print-making (seriography, lithography, etc) are looked at as non-essential and disposable. Humboldt State established the third photo program in the USA that was under a Department of Art. Yet even with that history, when the art historians and painters take over the department, traditional photography and printmaking are treated as an undesirable friend of a unknown relative.

Vaughn, My view may be skewed because at the universities where I went to school and teach photography is king.

At Bowling Green State University in Ohio where I went, photography is part of the "Digital Art" program which includes Visual Communications and Fine Art.

[tgtaylor]

What? Cat's got the collective tongue? Well I pose an "easier" one to consider:

If you went into, say, an art gallery and there were two seemingly identical photographic prints, one hand-made in the darkroom by the artisan and the other machine made by an inkjet printer, which one would you expect to have the higher price tag?

Thomas