Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

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

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    north of the 49th
    Posts
    531

    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/
    where we're going, we don't need roads. just a Giesler, 9.9 horses, wide open Shield waters and I'm outta here

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,296

    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.

  3. #3
    8x20 8x10 6x9 John Jarosz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Iowa
    Posts
    469

    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.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    2,916

    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.

    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.

  5. #5
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    8,414

    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.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    "When did photography become a desk job?" Kirk Gittings 2009

    KIRK GITTINGS
    WEBSITE

    LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Montara, California
    Posts
    1,530

    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

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Dallas/Novosibirsk
    Posts
    1,432

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

    Quote Originally Posted by John Jarosz View Post
    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.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    193

    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.

  9. #9
    Mike Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    659

    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.
    Mike → "Junior Liberatory Scientist"

  10. #10
    Dave Karp
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    2,269

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. William Eggleston - Anointing the Overlooked in Nashville
    By Henry Ambrose in forum Announcements
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-Apr-2011, 16:20
  2. William Eggleston Show
    By mcfactor in forum On Photography
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 3-Dec-2008, 21:08
  3. A thousand monkey's -who needs Eggleston
    By tim atherton in forum On Photography
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 7-Feb-2008, 18:21
  4. William Eggleston "In the Real World"
    By tim atherton in forum On Photography
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 18-Sep-2007, 00:11

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •