The AIPAD Show

[Peter Lewin]

Having immersed myself in images for 6 hours yesterday, I feel compelled to post some of my impressions from the annual AIPAD (Assoc. of Int'l Photographic Art Dealers) show at the Park Ave. Armory in New York. Hopefully at least some of you will not find this boring or trite.

First, for those of you with access to Manhattan, I can't recommend the show too highly. At least 100 dealers were represented, what is amazing is the breadth of photography covered. I don't know if there was a single photograph I have seen in any anthology or history of photography book that wasn't there, often in multiple prints. Are you interested in the "alternative processes" of the beginnings of photography in the mid-to-late 1800s? Yes, the works by Fox Talbot, Baldus, Le Gray, etc. are all there, in their albumined and salted glory. Any of the 20th century classics, say Adams, Strand, Penn, Edward Weston or slightly lesser classics like Caponigro, Clift, Brett Weston, etc. you would like to see? They are all there. Is Contemporary your thing? I'm less fluent with the current names, but if 60" x 80" color ink-jet is your thing, please come and feast! I don't think there is a single museum collection in the world which can match AIPAD. And this isn't just gushing, I've attended 7 or 8 of these over the past 12 years or so, and always come away with the same feeling.

The next major impression I had was that not one contemporary photographer produces prints in the range 8x10 through 16x20, and certainly not in silver. Everything new is color, is huge, and is produced as "objects" in a variety of sizes to fit different price ranges! As good marketers, the galleries exhibited the largest size on their display walls, "the better to get your attention with." Then if you were interested in an image and asked, you were given a range of sizes to fit different wallets and different-sized walls. I was really taken with, to name one contemporary photographer, Steven Wilkes. He has replaced Cartier-Bresson's "moment" with a photograph as a "dawn-to-dusk event:" he photographs a scene for 12 hours (i.e. many, many individual digital stills) and then uses Photoshop to magically combine a few, covering the period from sun-rise to dark, into a single seamless photograph, where the lighting on one margin is morning, and on the other margin, evening. I could have had any one of these in at least three sizes, with prices to match. To select two large-format examples (meaning format of the taking camera, not the print!) two photographers I had never heard of, Tetsugo Hyakutake and Daniel Lobdell were represented by huge panoramics, created by stitching together enlarged 4x5 negative scans; incredible detail, the photos could absorb you, but you also need a conference-room wall, or a lobby, to hang them.

Lastly (so as to not write a book!) pricing. The more famous works easily carried 5-figure price tags, the least expensive started around $3,500. It wasn't only the framed works hanging on display. Each dealer had one or more "flip boxes" for lack of a better name, bins in which mounted, matted, and enclosed in plastic sleeves prints were placed vertically, so you could "flip" through them in sequence. One might think that the "major" works were hung, and the less expensive in the bins. Well ... I found myself "flipping" through Weston's for $30,000, Adams's and Strand's and so on, at similar prices, as if I was at a street art fair rummaging through the display boxes. I watched as one woman extracted a gorgeous copy of Strand's "White Fence" (I believe I groaned, at seeing another of my favorites "in person") and she told me that she was calling her husband to come to the show after work, she was thinking of buying it (again, 5-figures) but needed his concurrence, since they collected together. The combined value of the posted prices in any one bin was an absurd number, let alone the total value of all prints in the show.

Which for me opened the whole issue of pricing art. We are well beyond the question of whether photographs are art. But how do you value a print? One dealer mentioned that there were about 1000 copies of Ansel Adams' "Moonrise" in existence. When there are 1000 copies, is each worth five figures? How do you value Steichen's "Steerage" when I saw at least two copies for sale, and know of several in museums? Forget about modern ink-jet prints, where once you have the file, you can print as many perfect copies as you want? (Steven Wilkes, whom I mentioned earlier, and actually spoke to at the show, offers to replace any of his prints you buy if you damage it; on one hand this is showing concern for your $12,000 purchase, but on the other hand underlines the "non-uniqueness" of the image; I got into this discussion with a question about archival permanence.) Or to make things personal, I really loved four photographs which I would have loved to hang on my wall. One was the Strand I mentioned, but it was way out of my price range. The second was "Cannery Buildings, Monterey, 1939" by Alma Lavenson ( a lesser-known member of the 1913 Armory show, and part of the Cunningham, Weston, Adams, Strand set) for a mere $20,000 (also way out of my range), and the two which were "almost feasible, if I don't pay for my daughter's grad school", William Clift's "White House Ruins, Canyon de Chelley" for only $7500, and one from Paul Caponigro's "Stone Henge" portfolio for $5000. But how do you know that the prints are worth that number, and not half that number, or maybe twice that amount? With one-of-a-kind works, the question remains, but is somehow less complicated; with photographs and their multiple copies (especially since both Paul Caponigro and William Clift are still alive and printing, as far as I know) it seems a daunting question. Of course, having a hard time parting with money, I went home without either, but keep wondering...

Well, for anyone who has read this far, "thanks," and if you get a chance, the show runs through Sunday (April 7th).

[bob carnie]

Great read Peter, my friend Stephen Bulger always has a booth at that show, I always miss this event due to business concerns but some year plan to attend.
thanks for your post.
Bob

[Thom Bennett]

Thanks for the virtual visit!

[ShawnHoke]

Thanks for this post, Peter. I live in The area and had forgot about the show!

[andy]

this blog: http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/ has a quick one line description of at least one piece, with price, from every booth at the show--certainly worth flipping through--

[bob carnie]

Thanks Andy


this blog: http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/ has a quick one line description of at least one piece, with price, from every booth at the show--certainly worth flipping through--

[Larry Kellogg]

It's a great show, well worth attending. Did you catch the hand-colored Paul Strand? I believe the shot was of a cherry tree. I think the work was done for a client, early in Strand's career and is nothing like his later work. Unfortunately, I did not write down the name of the dealer.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks for the post and information. Wish I could see the show. I'm staggered by the prices for some of the work by relatively unknown photographers (or I should say, unknown to me, maybe in the world of fine art they're big names). My wife and I will likely be in NYC soon but unfortunately after the show closes.

[ROL]

Well ... I found myself "flipping" through Weston's for $30,000, Adams's and Strand's and so on, at similar prices, as if I was at a street art fair rummaging through the display boxes.

Reminds me of the box of impeccably mounted and beautifully presented limited edition prints I sit above, on the floor, under my desk, at this very writing ;). Being GSP's and unknown, they are easily and entirely "worthless".


Your cogent observations are pretty much as I've experienced at major art shows over the last decade – where the newer, unknown, machine produced, un–editioned print trumps anything of more proven lasting and rare value by any acclaimed master of photography. I too, have been met only with blank stares at any mention of archival permanence, and have learned how unimportant it is to a sale (and to keep my mouth shut). If anything, I've concluded that it be very good indeed to have a well connected and/or respected art dealer representing you. Forget it, Jake, it's the art world (apologies to Robert Towne). Thanks for a very even–handed and reasoned read.

[Peter Lewin]

... pretty much as I've experienced at major art shows over the last decade – where the newer, unknown, machine produced, un–editioned print trumps anything of more proven lasting and rare value by any acclaimed master of photography. I too, have been met only with blank stares at any mention of archival permanence...
First, I'm glad that some of you found my write-up to be of interest. When I read ROL's comment, I was a bit worried that perhaps I seemed dismissive of some of the new work, which certainly wasn't the case. Steven Wilkes' work, which I mentioned twice, can be seen at http://www.monroegallery.com/photographers/wilkes-dayintonight. I really liked the images, and found my discussion with Mr. Wilkes fascinating. Without meaning for this to sound like some kind of joke, I was washing my hands in the restroom, looked over at the next sink, and there, identified by his exhibitor's tag, was Mr. Wilkes. With a certain amount of reluctance, I told him how much I enjoyed his images, and rather than simply thank me, he asked me to walk with him back to the booth to look at the work together. He explained how he had started out as an analogue photographer, but as he became more involved with computers and Photoshop, felt the challenge to see what this new technology allowed him to do which had previously been impossible. The result was his series of "time lapse" stills, which as I mentioned earlier, compress an entire day into a single image. I was very impressed that he had found a concept which as far as I know is still unique to him, something rare in photography, and would have been happy to own several of the images.

When I had asked one of the gallery representatives earlier about archival properties, the response was, in terms of my question, very positive: if the image ever faded, or if it was damaged in any way, Mr. Wilkes would replace it with an identical copy. It was that comment which, when I thought about it later, underlined the "double-edged" nature of the medium: how nice that you could have that guarantee, but at the same time, what does it say about the uniqueness of the object that you now own?

Similarly, when I went back yet again to admire the work (and I guess in some imaginary way consider purchasing one, although again I could never justify the actual expenditure, even if the "small version," 40 x 23, was priced at $7500, in terms of work at AIPAD, an almost affordable number) I was bothered by the fact that the images were somehow too perfect, in the same way that a beautiful color postcard image seems somehow less "real" than a more flawed color image, or a black and white print. Ultimately, I guess to use ROL's words, it seemed too "machine-produced," although I know intellectually, and in this case underlined by my talk with the photographer, the work really is a product of Steven Wilkes' mind and technical skill. If I put, say the Paul Caponigro "Stonehenge" B&W 11x14 print next to any of the sizes of Mr. Wilkes' "Jerusalem" (as an example), they are both beautiful, but while I can't articulate it well, one is a photograph, and the other is "something else" which at a simplistic level simply doesn't reflect the same craftsmanship and skill (although I repeat, for emphasis, that both really reflect similar, but different, types of imagination and skill). At the end of the day, this is simply another example of the intellectual issues that digital ink-jet work raises for some of us who were raised on traditional silver, or chromogenic, prints.


Did you catch the hand-colored Paul Strand?
Unfortunately not. The downside of a show this large and wonderful is that after the first couple of hours (and I was there from around 11:30AM to 5:15PM) I simply start to over-load. Instead of spending time in every booth, I start scanning the walls, and make relatively quick judgments about whether to go in and look at all the work in detail, or whether I simply cannot deal with yet another Fox Talbot or Ansel Adams, and move on. Somewhere in that process, I'm afraid that what might have been Strand's only hand-colored print got lost in the shuffle! After you have lost your heart to a print of Strand's "White Fence" or one of Edward Weston's sand dunes, or any of a list of other amazing prints, you're down to "oh well, what's one more Strand to look at...".

And finally, for Brian Ellis: in case you've never seen it, there is a useful website for Photograph Magazine, http://www.photographmag.com/, where you can filter the exhibition listings by location and date, to see which NYC galleries might be showing work of interest while you are in New York. While I have often visited museums, I have been reluctant to visit the photography galleries, feeling unsure how welcoming they would be to someone who loves the medium but isn't about to buy the expensive works they have on display. However, speaking with a number of gallery owners at AIPAD, they all assured me that they welcomed all visitors, most of them are in the business because they love the medium, as I heard one of them say to another owner, "I only wish I didn't have to actually sell the photographs to earn a living." I was surprised at how much time they were willing to spend chatting with me about photographs that we both enjoyed, even knowing (I'm sure they did after a minute or two) that I wasn't a "real customer."

[ROL]

When I read ROL's comment, I was a bit worried that perhaps I seemed dismissive of some of the new work, which certainly wasn't the case.

Not at all, that's why I read and responded to your style of writing. Had it been a rant, I wouldn't have bothered posting. If anything my comments were more generally leaning in that direction a bit (though not intended, simply stating fact about certain kinds of work as I have so experienced). If I relate to a post and it makes me think, I try to make others think as well, not simply cheerlead insignificantly. Perhaps it is my style which needs work, written and photographic.

[Oren Grad]

I was at AIPAD for a few hours on Saturday. I had a chance to visit in 2011 as well; my impression was that between the two years the pendulum has swung a bit away from new material and back toward well-worn "greatest hits".

Stephen Wilkes' stuff was definitely in-your-face eye-catching, though it's not something I'd want to look at for very long. But I was impressed by the effort he put in at his dealer's booth, explaining over and over again in a patient and friendly way to whoever wanted to know, the elaborate technique he needed to achieve those results.

The hand-colored Strand was a big surprise - I'd not heard of it before.

The classic stuff was otherwise pretty familiar for the most part. More contemporary material that I especially enjoyed included a nice set of prints by Pentti Sammallahti, and a handful by Chris Killip; both have been on my mind as I've recently purchased monographs, and it was nice to see their work "in the flesh".

For anyone who's currently in NYC or planning to be there, an ambitious show of Civil War photographs and related material just opened at the Met. Allow several hours if you like to study prints closely - there's lots of interesting stuff.

[Merg Ross]

Thanks for the post and information. Wish I could see the show. I'm staggered by the prices for some of the work by relatively unknown photographers (or I should say, unknown to me, maybe in the world of fine art they're big names).

Yes, it is certainly a different time from my recollections of Edward Weston at Wildcat Hill, unable to garner more than $25 for a print in his lifetime. And now, his ex daughter-in-law is marketing his prints in six figures. Perhaps being at his peak during the Depression played a small role, but I suspect his fostering photography as an art form is partially responsible for the inflated expectations of today. Or, for all I know, they are realized. I'll check with a few friends who had booths at AIPAD.

Thanks for the original posting.

[Larry Kellogg]

The hand-colored Strand was of the Pictorialism school. Seeing as Strand rejected that style for more realistic work, he might have hated that print for all we know, LOL.

The prices for the same prints were a little bit all over the map. One Magnolia print from Imogen Cunningham, with a huge ripped off and repaired corner, was listed for something like $45k, while other examples of that print were around $20k, if I recall correctly. As someone mentioned, if there are many copies of the same print, are they all worth $20k or $40k?

I don't think I could live with the burden of owning expensive prints. They're beautiful to look at, but I don't want to have to worry about damage and insuring the pieces. I'm thankful that there are dealers who are showing the work. Perhaps I will change my mind if I hit it big. ;-)

The huge contemporary photographs just don't move me, at least, not for long. Is it an emblem of our age that something must be better if it is bigger? I had the same feeling when looking at the preview at Christies, where there were huge blown up photographs of supermodels in one of the galleries.

In the end, I took the show as an incentive to keep trying to make my own photographs. As Imogen Cunningham said when asked what was her favorite photograph of hers, "the one I'm going to take tomorrow".

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

With respect to your comment about uniqueness, photography has always been a "non-unique" medium in the sense that as long as there was a negative duplicates could always be made (within reason). Roland Barthes (I think it was) wrote fairly extensively about this aspect of photography. The only significant difference I see between the "old days" and digital files is that making the dupe was more difficult and time-consuming in a darkroom, plus the possible problem of getting the dupe "exactly" like the original if the two weren't made at the same time (which also can be a problem with digital files).

Thanks again for the original post.

[Larry Kellogg]

Here is an interview from PDN about the issue of uniqueness and limited editions, in relation to the recent reprinting and sale of some of Eggleston's work:

http://www.pdnonline.com/news/QandA-Art-Collector-J-5139.shtml

The collector lost his case:

http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/885054/judge-rules-william-eggleston-can-clone-his-own-work-rebuffing

The issue is complex and I'm not taking sides, but it is problematic to invest in such prints only to see them cloned and resold. I guess not buying expensive prints is a solution to the problem. Something you do not own cannot be devalued, at least in your own eyes, or portfolio, I should say. ;-)

[bob carnie]

Thank you Larry for the links

This issue has really made me think deeply about my own work. I am working with large negative as the source which allows for very large prints but at the same time
I like medium size 16x20 prints.

I also would like to edition my work and have struggled with a solution or method.

What I have come up with is the following.

Editions should be printed out within my lifetime, as long as I can stand in a darkroom or operate a large printer.

The editions should be of 10, as I really don't want to make any more than 10 prints of any given image.
The edition should be numbers of the image, rather than print size or material..

Therefore I have decided to print out my favourite images to sizes and material that I think are appropriate.

for example 1-5 could be silver prints at 16 x20 6-10 could be mural prints.. all from same image, I have decided that this is the way for me,
I do not think edition prints in various size, which allow for more prints of the image is for me.
for example 1-10 silver prints 16 x20 - then another edition of 10 8x10 print- then another of 10 30 x40 print= 30 versions of the same image.
I would be interested on others opinions of a 10 edition of the image, with possibility of different sizes and material due to client / collectors wishes.

[Merg Ross]

Thank you Larry for the links

This issue has really made me think deeply about my own work. I am working with large negative as the source which allows for very large prints but at the same time
I like medium size 16x20 prints.

I also would like to edition my work and have struggled with a solution or method.

What I have come up with is the following.

Editions should be printed out within my lifetime, as long as I can stand in a darkroom or operate a large printer.

The editions should be of 10, as I really don't want to make any more than 10 prints of any given image.
The edition should be numbers of the image, rather than print size or material..

Therefore I have decided to print out my favourite images to sizes and material that I think are appropriate.

for example 1-5 could be silver prints at 16 x20 6-10 could be mural prints.. all from same image, I have decided that this is the way for me,
I do not think edition prints in various size, which allow for more prints of the image is for me.
for example 1-10 silver prints 16 x20 - then another edition of 10 8x10 print- then another of 10 30 x40 print= 30 versions of the same image.
I would be interested on others opinions of a 10 edition of the image, with possibility of different sizes and material due to client / collectors wishes.

This method makes sense if you are marketing your own work. However, if you are selling with representation, say a gallery, the demands may be different. I assume that your entire process is silver based. Correct?

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks for sharing this. An interesting vignette into the current game of image marketing. And it is a game, presumably with
some shrewd marketers and potentially dumb overty-wealthy buyers. The current fad on huge inkjets is indeed a bit nauseating, but that will pass. The booth fees must be staggering, and help contribute to the monopolistic nature of some of these agents. But it's what they're in business to do, and generating figures at least keeps attention on photography as something of hypothetical monetary value, though how this is specifically done is the crux of the game. Seem to be a bifurcation on a few predictable vintage names, versus modern ostentation, with damn little in the middle. I have no problem
with the idea of a print selling for several thousand dollars - in fact, it's pretty damn hard to survive as a printmaker if you
can't reach that level at some point. There is something called overhead. But a lot of this is indeed targeting to the conspicuous consumption crowd, or the usual "investment" suckers. An interesting alternative to the traditional gallery model,
buy certainly not a realistic approach for those majority of us who can slap down fifty grand or whatever for a temporary show
space!

[bob carnie]

Hi Merg
Correct Silver Gelatin for BW
I am also preparing to work in UltraStable for Colour from digital capture and then making silver separations on my Lambda.

I look at the high numbers of editions, and then look at how many images I create, past , present and future,
and I conclude at my age there will never be a way financially, and physical strength to do more than 10 prints of what I consider my best work.
I think my goals of 10 images printed of each is doable within the timelines that I feel I want to print each day.

Like some photographers of the past , I would never consider anyone else continuing on printing my private work. Solarization's black and white and colour negative are so subjective and the end print is never identical , so I would like to be the one to print out the editions of my work. Whether they sell now or in the future is up to the marketplace. Once printed I believe I will destroy the original. I have not gotten to this stage in my career yet so when that day finally arrives I will see if I have the guts to destroy the neg's.
I would only work with representation that follow this mandate or my wishes... I really hope that I can say one day that my images sell out.


This method makes sense if you are marketing your own work. However, if you are selling with representation, say a gallery, the demands may be different. I assume that your entire process is silver based. Correct?

[bob carnie]

APAID SHOW turns away more gallery's than it takes, It is a incredible opportunity for most gallery's to be in and very difficult to get into the game.


Thanks for sharing this. An interesting vignette into the current game of image marketing. And it is a game, presumably with
some shrewd marketers and potentially dumb overty-wealthy buyers. The current fad on huge inkjets is indeed a bit nauseating, but that will pass. The booth fees must be staggering, and help contribute to the monopolistic nature of some of these agents. But it's what they're in business to do, and generating figures at least keeps attention on photography as something of hypothetical monetary value, though how this is specifically done is the crux of the game. Seem to be a bifurcation on a few predictable vintage names, versus modern ostentation, with damn little in the middle. I have no problem
with the idea of a print selling for several thousand dollars - in fact, it's pretty damn hard to survive as a printmaker if you
can't reach that level at some point. There is something called overhead. But a lot of this is indeed targeting to the conspicuous consumption crowd, or the usual "investment" suckers. An interesting alternative to the traditional gallery model,
buy certainly not a realistic approach for those majority of us who can slap down fifty grand or whatever for a temporary show
space!

[Drew Wiley]

I'd go insane trying to "edition". It's hard enough for me to print two of anything, because I'm eager to go on to the next
image or challenge, and have no desire to become a xerox machine, or turn over production to a dumb machine. I remember
back when you could buy a good print of "Moonrise" for ten grand (from someone who probably bought it for two hundred
bucks). Then one sold at auction for forty grand, which triggered everyone dumping their own copy on the market, and all of
a sudden they were dime a dozen (comparatively - sixteen grand was the going rate). Supply and demand. There are going to
be a lot of these "investors" losing their shirt. Only a few will win - and they're probably the ones doing the selling. But that's
a risky game in itself. There's got to be a better alternative. But life is short and you only get so many opportunities. Lots of
ways to make money. Big deal. Would rather spend my time experiencing things, photographing them, printing them, living...
what becomes of all that afterwards is an afterthought. Even if all my prints end up in a dumpster, I at least experienced the
vision, and that can't ever be taken away. So, in a sense, I pity these greedy middlemen ...

[paulr]

Remember that the AIPAD show isn't a representation of art photography broadly; it's a representation of AIPAD dealers, who are tribe like any other, with its own values and ideas and followers. It's a significant tribe ... one that's worth keeping an eye on ... but there are others that may be more interesting or relevant to your own practice.

AIPAD galleries tend to be conservative. This means an emphasis on work by the Canonized Dead, by the Canonized Almost-Dead, and by the Hot Contemporary who have been around long enough that their hotness has been validated by institutional consensus, but not so long that its started to cool.

It's a huge, not very edgy museum, that's been curated by the blue chip market.

I don't mean this as a dismissal. It's fun to visit all the old famous stuff. Most of it is represented in museums in this town that are available year round, but AIPAD often lets you get closer, and in better light. Some of the contemporary work is compelling, as Peter said. There may even be surprises.

But I've found the show to be of limited interest over the years. I have a passive interest in where the big money end of the market is on any given year. AIPAD hasn't been helpful for my own practical research. These galleries, in general, are interested in representing people who are already famous. The more interesting work of discovering and promoting new talent is relatively small part of this world.

[Drew Wiley]

My nerves would probably fry. Not exactly a contemplative experience as a viewer; and as a seller, I've had to run a few trade
shows myself and know that in about a day and half one gets frazzled. Gotta commend someone for thinking outside the box
and starting this kind of distribution option to begin with. But it's basically pure commercial hype. There is a wannabee
analogous annual show starting up in this part of the world, but it's been a semi-flop. Not for the lack of wealthy folks in this
part of the world. Big prints don't do well here - we don't have those gawd-awful big drywall surfaces that Miami and Vegas
do. But there has to be some realistic alternative between street fairs and totally monopolized big events like this.

[paulr]

Drew, sweeping absolutisms about a show you haven't seen are useful to no one.

And I have no idea what you mean about "monopolized." This is a fair by one of many organizations that puts on fairs. You like to imagine that they're all the same, but having gone to many I can tell you they're not.

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, Paul.... I was referring to the overhead involved. Certain venues have a very high buy-in, with a remarkable amt of
built-in red tape and overhead. This pertain to more than just art sales. Fifty grand is the normal setup fee for a medium
footprint space in a significant tradeshow location in SF too, plus all the other overhead of being there. But in another sense,
the photo fairs are monopolized by a relatively small number of existing dealers. They not only have to have a track record
of accountability in financial dealings (a good thing), but also need to have serious monetary momentum just to do this and
know how to work the right crowd, so to speak. Just a variation on similar themes in the larger art world. Yeah, it would be
fun to attend one of these some day if I somehow happened to be in the neighborhood, but I'm sure not going to go out of
my way to do it! One can see plenty of classic "canonized" work here on the West Coast, and as far as those big inkjets, enough of them turn up in museum venues (or are perhaps even printed locally) to wear off the novelty pretty fast. There just
needs to be a more realistic option out there other than the usual low-rent art loft concept (and there's nothing low-rent about any neigborhood around here unless one is willing to dodge period gang gunfire! - not exactly the kind of location that
attracts inellligent buyers. Lots of remodeling of old military facilities etc going on - but by the time it's done, some gazzoolionaire moves in and hogs the whole facility). Nothing new under the sun. No wonder the first generation of artists
had to set up galleries in caves!

[Oren Grad]

Remember that the AIPAD show isn't a representation of art photography broadly; it's a representation of AIPAD dealers, who are tribe like any other, with its own values and ideas and followers. It's a significant tribe ... one that's worth keeping an eye on ... but there are others that may be more interesting or relevant to your own practice.

AIPAD galleries tend to be conservative. This means an emphasis on work by the Canonized Dead, by the Canonized Almost-Dead, and by the Hot Contemporary who have been around long enough that their hotness has been validated by institutional consensus, but not so long that its started to cool.

It's a huge, not very edgy museum, that's been curated by the blue chip market.

I don't mean this as a dismissal. It's fun to visit all the old famous stuff. Most of it is represented in museums in this town that are available year round, but AIPAD often lets you get closer, and in better light. Some of the contemporary work is compelling, as Peter said. There may even be surprises.

But I've found the show to be of limited interest over the years. I have a passive interest in where the big money end of the market is on any given year. AIPAD hasn't been helpful for my own practical research. These galleries, in general, are interested in representing people who are already famous. The more interesting work of discovering and promoting new talent is relatively small part of this world.

Having been twice now, as a visitor from out of town, all of this sounds about right to me. The first time is the most fun, because you get to see a large if haphazard selection of the canonized stuff up close. But unless you just live for the canonized stuff, that aspect of the entertainment wears out pretty quickly. And this year was pretty thin as far as work that was new and interesting to me, which is what I really would like to see. If I lived in New York I'm sure visiting the smaller galleries through the year would be more productive for that.

[peter schrager]

living now on the west coast I see better overall art than I have in new york in years...I mean fresh and NEW work
Best, Peter

[Drew Wiley]

Yes. There are some talented artists here in the West. But they seem to sell very little of their work here - it all seems to
go somewhere else.

[Richard Mahoney]

... I also would like to edition my work and have struggled with a solution or method.

What I have come up with is the following. ...

Bob, Paul McNamara has commented on this (you have to scroll almost to the bottom of the page):

McNamara Gallery Photography
An introduction to the editioning of photographs
This text, which should be seen as a discussion paper, will be reviewed periodically [last revision 30. 11. 12]
http://www.mcnamara.co.nz/news.html


Best, Richard

[bob carnie]

Hi Richard

I will read this , I briefly looked at his recommondation's interesting. I will look at the whole article later.
thanks

Bob

Bob, Paul McNamara has commented on this (you have to scroll almost to the bottom of the page):

McNamara Gallery Photography
An introduction to the editioning of photographs
This text, which should be seen as a discussion paper, will be reviewed periodically [last revision 30. 11. 12]
http://www.mcnamara.co.nz/news.html


Best, Richard

[Larry Kellogg]

"The judge disagreed. Eggleston may have profited from the Christie’s sale, she concluded, but not at Sobel’s expense. Eggleston could be held liable only if he created new editions of the limited-edition works in Sobel’s collection using the same dye-transfer process he used for the originals — a move that would directly deflate their value. In this case, however, Eggleston was using a new digital process to produce what she deemed a new body of work. "

So, I am left wondering about the above quoted paragraph that describes the judge's ruling. It seems to all come down to whether a new process was used in creating the prints. How far does this go? If Epson produces a new printer with different inks, is that a new process, or is that still the same old "digital" process?

[Larry Kellogg]

I just received all of Fred Picker's newsletters and have been reading randomly when I came across this quote: "...he (Edward Weston) was still (after twenty years) charging the same amount, and rather pleased about it, because it represented the essential democracy of photography; the number of prints obtainable from a negative was theoretically limitless, and therefore many people should be able to share it, at a reasonable price. The disagreed emphatically with the photographers who tried to impose scarcity value natural to painting on the photographer's works." Edward Weston, Dody Weston Thompson"

Clearly, we're a long way from this notion, but we have the internet, at least, so we can see the images for free.

[bob carnie]

Does not Brooks Jensen from Lenswork make prints for $25-$35 in open editions. This is another way at looking at the whole issue.

I just received all of Fred Picker's newsletters and have been reading randomly when I came across this quote: "...he (Edward Weston) was still (after twenty years) charging the same amount, and rather pleased about it, because it represented the essential democracy of photography; the number of prints obtainable from a negative was theoretically limitless, and therefore many people should be able to share it, at a reasonable price. The disagreed emphatically with the photographers who tried to impose scarcity value natural to painting on the photographer's works." Edward Weston, Dody Weston Thompson"

Clearly, we're a long way from this notion, but we have the internet, at least, so we can see the images for free.

[Drew Wiley]

Ummm ... No, you don't get to see Weston images for free on the web. You see a vague fascimile. Every twenty-something jackass surfing the web probably thinks they can make better images with their cell phone, unless they happen to know a little photo history. Same goes for that Eggleston debacle. The original small dye transfer prints had a great deal of verve
and charm to them, which basically went hand in hand with his off-the-cuff style. But the modern inkjets look like, well,
just big inkjet ... oversized mechanically reproduced tiny images. You might have a different opinion, but he would have never launched those iconic images in the first place with that mentality. Trying to squeeze a few more bucks out of an almost dry lemon, as far as I'm concerned... and a smart investor wouldn't go near that second-generation stuff with a ten
foot pole.

[bob carnie]

I tend to agree with Sobel on this thing. I believe that Eggleston group is not being upfront and yes squeezing the lemon a bit.
This could indeed have major implications about the work we produce and sell.

It certainly making me think about what I am doing with the work I am producing.

[Merg Ross]

Back to Edward Weston (sorry!) and limited editions; he printed editions limited to 40 as part of his Print of the Month Club offering. The prints were priced at $5 each.

[Larry Kellogg]

Ummm ... No, you don't get to see Weston images for free on the web. You see a vague fascimile. Every twenty-something jackass surfing the web probably thinks they can make better images with their cell phone, unless they happen to know a little photo history.

I agree, you see a vague facsimile, but a vague facsimile is better than no facsimile at all. In the old days, you had to buy books to see a facsimile, but now you can see one with a search engine.


Same goes for that Eggleston debacle. The original small dye transfer prints had a great deal of verve
and charm to them, which basically went hand in hand with his off-the-cuff style. But the modern inkjets look like, well,
just big inkjet ... oversized mechanically reproduced tiny images. You might have a different opinion, but he would have never launched those iconic images in the first place with that mentality. Trying to squeeze a few more bucks out of an almost dry lemon, as far as I'm concerned... and a smart investor wouldn't go near that second-generation stuff with a ten
foot pole.

I tend to agree, which probably means the originals should actually go up in value, but we will find out, I guess. The new stuff certainly sold well, though.

[Larry Kellogg]

Back to Edward Weston (sorry!) and limited editions; he printed editions limited to 40 as part of his Print of the Month Club offering. The prints were priced at $5 each.

Please adjust for inflation, LOL.

[paulr]

(Edward Weston) was still (after twenty years) charging the same amount, and rather pleased about it, because it represented the essential democracy of photography; the number of prints obtainable from a negative was theoretically limitless, and therefore many people should be able to share it, at a reasonable price. The disagreed emphatically with the photographers who tried to impose scarcity value natural to painting on the photographer's works." Edward Weston, Dody Weston Thompson"

A noble position, but only possible position among many.

I find it funny that Strand, who was the much more vocal socialist, was vehemently against gallery and museum exhibitions (at least at one point in his life), because they allowed people to enjoy an artist's work for free. The cognitive dissonance there is pretty amazing. This is documented in letters he wrote to Adams, declining and invitation to show work.

[Drew Wiley]

Hard to say what something will be worth down the road. A lot of this is really about collecting names rather than images,
then about BS marketing. Painters and their agents have long done the same, with some basically or even legally entering into fraud territory. I won't ever have that worry. Either the print was made by me in the darkroom or it won't exist. Of course, only a handful of people have heard of me anyway, so none of these types will give a damn about yet one more nobody. In the art world it's way more important to have a lousy image by someone famous than a great image by someone
unknown. There are a few collectors taking exception to that stereotype, however. And sometimes the specific medium makes
a helluva difference. I've seen gorgeous color Fresson images, truly idiosyncratic color-wise, but with a distinct look which would be totally lost in any modern process like inkjet. It would be like comparing a photolithographic poster to a Rembrandt
painting with impasto. As an aside, I have little sympathy for people who label inkjets as "pigment prints" - they sorta are,
but not really... inks are blends ... fine if it's your primary medium you have tuned your personal work to... maybe not so fine
as a substitute for something else. All depends.

[bob carnie]

How about pigmented ink on paper? I am really not sure what to call ink-jets that I make, I use Epson and Cannon current ink sets and I usually call them Ink on Paper prints.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, "ink" seems to be an appropriate if generalized term. But such inks can be composed of all kinds of ingredients, which
potentialy include dyes, lakes, and maybe a few primary pigments. The technical problem is getting these particles small enough to squeeze thru the nozzles. Not just anything will work; and given the complexity of pinning down the gamut, a lot
of different inks are needed too. But I'd prefer the term "pigment print" be used for assembly processes where true pigments
are introduced into the film, like quad color carbon, carbro, Fresson, etc, even gum. This doesn't mean all such prints have
superior lightfastness to inkjet, but does realistically categorize them. At some point in time, I can see this becoming a legal issue if there is enough abuse of the terminology. For instance, in NY and Calif it has long been illegal to market a photolithograph as a true lithograph. Slippery shysters like Kincade tried to get around this by putting a dot or two of real
pigment on the print after it was mass-produced. But that whole enterprise eventually caved in, which was inevitable. The
whole idea of editioning can get silly. True lithographic plates simply wear out. One can only make so many prints themselves in a darkroom. Even dye transfer printing can only be done just so fast, at considerable expense, until everything
wears down. And there is simply no way to mass-produce true pigment prints. But in your potential case, Bob, the first thing
is to educate the public about such distinctions. Even the average curator these days doesn't give a damn about how an image was generated. That's the curse of the web. But up close, a well-done pigment print can have a life of its own. For
example, the almost 3-D look of relief of a monotone carbon print can have an appeal that is almost impossible to translate
into a secondary media. People have to see the real deal. That's the only thing that has worked for me. Once they see a an
actual print, they instantly understand the difference and the inherent value.

[Larry Kellogg]

A noble position, but only possible position among many.

I find it funny that Strand, who was the much more vocal socialist, was vehemently against gallery and museum exhibitions (at least at one point in his life), because they allowed people to enjoy an artist's work for free. The cognitive dissonance there is pretty amazing. This is documented in letters he wrote to Adams, declining and invitation to show work.

Hilarious, isn't it? Oh, yeah, Strand was a Communist. The first edition of Tir a M’Hurain was printed in Leipzig, East Germany, supposedly because of the requirement for a special printing process and was banned in the US unless it bore the stamp: " 'Printed in Germany, USSR occupied' – a stipulation to which they knew Strand would never consent."

as stated in this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/scotland-blog/2012/sep/20/scotland-photography-paul-strand

I suppose Strand would have hated the internet. Think of all the millions of people who enjoy fascsimiles of his images for free.