Does there need to be any financial interest in order to show the work? Not every country or institution operates under the same incentives as in the U.S.He would have been better off setting up a private foundation with people who would be paid from his estate to manage his work and sell his work to the public. This would provide an income for his descendants and give better publicity to his work. More of the public would get to enjoy his life's work. Just like Ansel Adams and Vivien Meier.
Now, the museum will just bury it along with other photos they received in some archive underground rarely to be seen again. No one there has any financial interest to sell his work and promote it. Just another bureaucracy.
Does there need to be any financial interest in order to show the work? Not every country or institution operates under the same incentives as in the U.S.
Also, I am unsure if even the local landfill will accept my archives.
Yes no real clues as to why France. He doesn't reside there nor does it appear from the article has he ever resided there
So I wonder what the reasons were?
pentaxuser
photography originated(got its first patent) in France, which is, therefore, its birthplace?
I'm prepared to leave those sort of considerations up to Mr. Kenna. After all, he has been fairly successful at putting his work into the public's gaze so far
He would have been better off setting up a private foundation with people who would be paid from his estate to manage his work and sell his work to the public. This would provide an income for his descendants and give better publicity to his work. More of the public would get to enjoy his life's work. Just like Ansel Adams and Vivien Meier.
Now, the museum will just bury it along with other photos they received in some archive underground rarely to be seen again. No one there has any financial interest to sell his work and promote it. Just another bureaucracy.
This is not about prints. The purpose of such gestures is first and foremost the storage of negatives—to ensure their security and longevity. Original prints are often also part of it, but it's the negs that are most important to preserve in optimal condition.
From these negs new prints can be made—and if the photographer was its own printer, notes are often included in the archives, so the new prints can be as faithful as possible to the photographer's intentions. These new prints, if the original is not available, can then be lent to other museums in case of touring exhibitions or special retrospectives. That a museum owns the negatives makes these kind of exchange between museums much easier.
And sometimes these new prints are indeed sold. Magnum recently did this with prints by Capa, Erwitt and others.
The article says the following regarding the donation to the museum: "It is accompanied by the rights of production and representation of the images."
I wonder how this all affects existing owners of his limited edition prints and prints out there for sale by dealers? What about their rights?
That's what I was talking about. The museum has the rights for production (of new prints) and representation (in this or other museums, in books and catalogs). This ensures that the works can keep being seen, which is what museums are for.
Changes nothing if you own an original print and want to sell it. It never has. There are today galleries that own original prints by great photographers and sell them, even though the negs are housed in a museum or foundation which has the rights of production and representation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?