• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Price for a photograph limited to "1/1" ?

Cheryl Jacobs said:
David, I'm not necessarily talking about drafts. Kevin was encouraging destroying each negative after he had a final print. If you keep the final draft before it goes to the publisher, you aren't doing what Kevin suggests.

- CJ
Click to expand...

Actually, you would need to print only one copy of the manuscript...

.....I think this subject deserves it's own thread, if Kevin really wants to discuss this idea. Lets not have this perfectly good thread go the way of the "artistic photography" thread.
 
Cheryl Jacobs said:
Kevin, do great authors destroy their manuscripts after a single book is published?

Should they only publish a single copy of each book, so as to make it "art"?

- CJ
Click to expand...

Cheryl first off who cares.

Secondly Authors do not make the copies, publishers do. Once an authors writes a book they don't go back and re-write it over and over again. Once an author sells the manuscript they no longer own it, the publisher does, they Authors may retain the copyright depending on the contract they signed. Now if they self published they still only publish the original one time to make unlimited copies from it and they still do not go aback and re-write the book. They only write the book once.

So in essence an authors does exactly that. They make one and move one like other artists do.
 
You don't know much about literature, do you Kevin?

Writers rewrite, update, amend and change their books all the time. Sometimes the publisher prints a new edition, sometimes not. The author always retains copyright, the publisher only buys the right to publish a book in one market - NOT the full copyright.

Of course there are authors who just hand over the manuscript and move on. Just like there are "photographers" who buy a new memory card when the old one is full...
 
kjsphoto said:
Cheryl first off who cares.
Click to expand...


Ummm. Well, Kevin, you do. LOL. I was responding to fairly controversial post of yours applying logic you introduced, as well as the statement in your signature. So, I would have to assume you care.

- CJ
 
Cheryl Jacobs said:
Ummm. Well, Kevin, you do. LOL. I was responding to fairly controversial post of yours applying logic you introduced, as well as the statement in your signature. So, I would have to assume you care.

- CJ
Click to expand...

You assumed wrong...
 
It's curious how performing solo musicians treat this entire issue....from virtuoso classical artists, to those performing in any other idiom. I can't imagine any such person feeling that their original rendering is and will always be the sole definitive one. Glen Gould's legendary 1950's Goldberg Variations recording is vastly different than the one he made in his early 50's not long before he died. Brahms revisited his B Major Piano Trio decades after its initial debut and, in the view of many, improved it immensely with the wisdom of years and experience. Tchaikovsky re-worked his Violin Concerto after it had been unfavorably critiqued (and rightly so IMHO) by the violinist for whom it had been intended. There are scores of other examples to consider, but the point remains that the 'first edition', however worthy as a work of art, is not regarded as the only 'edition' by many who have established unassailable reputations as being among the world's elite artists, musicians, writers, and, yes...photographers. (See Szarkowski's Ansel Adams at 100 for examples of AA's early and later prints from the same negatives.)
 
Hmmm...so Kevin makes his print and then trashes the negative.

What if something "happens" to the print? Fire, flood etc.

Sounds a bit like the thinking behind the ancient Library of Alexandria. Gather the only originals of most of the then "Western world's" knowledge in one place....
 

What if something happens to a painting? That is what art insurance is for.
 
kjsphoto said:
That would be great and appreciated.

Thanks...
Click to expand...

Kevin, I don't quite understand what's gnawing at you. Obviously you're passionate about editions of one, and if you can make that work for you then that's great, a real accomplishment.

I assume that you also want to convert other photographers to your point of view - perhaps a harder task given the weight of history, but a laudable aim if it's something you believe in. I also assume that, given you advertise on APUG, that you'd like some APUG members and subscribers to be your customers. Here's where I get confused: rude, dismissive and "thread breaking" comments from you are only going to p*** people off and undermine both of those two goals.

Lighten up: being polite to people will be beneficial to all of us.
 
Kevin, I really don't understand the hostility. Everyone works how they work, with no need for anyone to decide who is an artist and who is not. There are no "real" artists and no "fake" artists, and no artistic rights and wrongs. There are no absolutes whatsoever of any kind, except that one should do what one loves to do. An opposing opinion should never be viewed as an attack, but when one makes a definitive statement, one should expect an opposing one.

Absolutism, the anti-art.

- CJ
 
kjsphoto said:
What if something happens to a painting? That is what art insurance is for.
Click to expand...

The insurance compensates the owner of the image for the loss.

Presuming you've successfully sold your print - you are not the owner.

And, having destroyed the negative, you've forfeited your ability to produce a "replacement print".

So, doesn't this thread now bend back to the 1/1 thread we saw in November?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

You want to produce "one offs". Is that your point?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My only post here will be to suggest Kevin start his own thread, and to warn others that sinking to chase bait leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Murray
 

I never said that. Learn to read and get back to me.
 
MurrayMinchin said:
My only post here will be to suggest Kevin start his own thread, and to warn others that sinking to chase bait leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Murray
Click to expand...

I answered the persons question and you guys cant handle it,

YOU GUYS HIJACK IT NOT ME. You have a right to answer the question anyway you see fit as do I.

My answer to the original was on topic and I didn't go on about it. Thank you very much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kjsphoto said:
I never said that. Learn to read and get back to me.
Click to expand...

Alright, Kevin. Ignore feature employed. It's unfortunate, but I don't deal with people who can only reply via insult.

All the best to you and yours this holiday season.

- CJ
 
No its not, its great, thanks...

You just made my Christmas....
 
It's a good gimmick, the 1/1 thing, and not a bad spin to push it here, and elswhere, see how much "persecution" you can draw on your "pure artist" ethos. Remember Kevin Saitta, they need to hear your name seven times for it to really work well. Anything less than three is a waste. Best, J
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kevin

i understand the single print thing --- but now you are posting the
destroyed negatives in the gallery.
i like photographs like that , have you come to the conclusion that the destroyed negative has now become
your negative / art ? or are you just goofing around and showing people who
don't destroy their negatives, that that is how it's done?

john
 

It isnt a gimmick, it is the way I sell my art.
 
kjsphoto said:
It isnt a gimmick, it is the way I sell my art.
Click to expand...

I sell my art 10/10. Still pretty rare, but not as rare as 1/1. If you feel like sharing, what effect have the 1/1 been on the price and volume of sales, compared to the way you were doing it before?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register