So, if limited editions are used to....

[tim atherton]

Therefore, any criticism of a successful artist by his/her less (monetarily) successful peers needs to bridge their income gap in order to be credible.

That may possibly apply in some circumstance but only if the person in question is an artist, but in the case he is no such thing, but rather a successful purveyor of kitsch - something very different.

[tim atherton]

As for quality... I have not yet seen an inkjet print to match the look of a well printed Ilfochrome/Cibachrome or even a Fuji Supergloss type R.
.

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they aren't there - which indeed there are.

[Vaughn]

Everything is an Art form if it's done well.

True, but then so is masterbation, but it is not worth noting so on the walls of higher education (except on the bathrom walls, perhaps).

Criticism is basically an intellectual exercise. In its worse form is nothing more than a type of mental masterbation, satisfying only the originator...and of course, those who get enjoyment from watching others (but then it is still not art, but entertainment.) At its best, it can leave the audience with greater understanding and appreciation...and actually move people.

So criticism is something that can be brought up to the level of art, but not an art form in of itself. My opinion, of course.


Vaughn

[domenico Foschi]

True, but then so is masterbation
Vaughn

What's wrong with masturbation?

[domenico Foschi]

Oh shoot, this will get in the Google search engine.
My career is over....

[jetcode]

Everything is an Art form if it's done well.

I tend to separate subjective qualifiers from the notion of art - who is the ultimate authority of "if it's done well"?

[Clay Turtle]

"Destroy the negative? What are you nuts!"

Funny, I thought the same Clay. It is Jorge that prefers to either destroy the negative or give away the negative with the original. In other words, let the other guy get rich off your work using your negative. Doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, I agree with you. All though we may have different reasons.

As the watch word of this section seems to be pro=>money, I tend to think that any statement here tends to be overlooked. But I do have one selling experience that has stayed with me over the years.
After returning from Nam, I went to visit a childhood friend but they had moved, selling their house, the then current occupant & his wife were long haired hippie types but we became friends. They seemed a bit out of place & spoke often about the lack of cultural activities. turns out he was the regional seller of art reprints. Now I would know an Escher from a Monet but he wanted me to help him with his route ( college campuses) in the state.
To make a long story short, one reprint of a famous painting really struck me as being odd. It is called Starry Night, I think? I took one look at it & thought that guy must have been as blind as a bat! Now some may say it was ranked so highly because of the notoriety of the painter, others might think that because of painting on the ceilings in some chapel someplace had caused his loss of sight & for this reason he was famous. Later I dealt with some of those who do paint & learned that that for many it was about the sculptured effect of his style. The best inkjet print I have seen came off a low end home printer set at 1200 dpi for this same reason. I wonder maybe that was what influenced Kinkade?

[paulr]

Selling the negative with the print is a choice you might make, for whatever reason, but you'd better charge a lot. There's plenty of precedence for this in the commercial world. Some clients do a buyout of all rights to the image in perpetuity, which either literally or practically includes the negative, and the right to do whatever they want with it.

And as you can imagine, it doesn't come cheap.

Most art photographers are in the business of selling a print (often made in limited numbers), but no rights to the image. Most commercial photographers are in the business of selling limited rights to an image (full page ad in magazine x, page 3, october, circulation of 25,000. that kind of thing), but no print (any print included is typically a machine print for utilitarian purposes, and might get scribbled on by art directors and prepress people).

But with a full buyout the client gets the whole farm.

This is one of the reasons paintings usually cost more than photographs. The one-of-a-kind nature of painting is the obvious reason, but less obvious is the legal meaning of the sale. When you buy a painting, it's a full buyout ... you get all the rights. When you buy a print (photo, lithograph, etc.) you buy the object and the right to look at it, but nothing else.

[jnantz]

Interesting work, I like the look but then I like Kinkade's what I áve seen of it. (Where I used to live a ''Painting with Light" was next door to the photo shop where I bought film, etc) I have noted that some of the photographers are using alternative to the traditional methods . . . so why did you? Why do you think this has become a more general trend?

clay ..

i started making prints like that as an exercise to be a better printer.
and then i kept doing it because it was fun

not sure why it might be a growing trend to do alt-process photography.
maybe because it is something that is "raw" and the opposite of digital ...
( and fun )

[domenico Foschi]

I tend to separate subjective qualifiers from the notion of art - who is the ultimate authority of "if it's done well"?

Put aside your subjective motivations and you will see if there is quality in someone's work.