Print Mounting Style and Collectibility

[davetravis]

Hi All,
On the show circuit these days I'm seeing a ton of the following: Color and BW prints that have been hard-mounted to thick board, then over-lamanated with a semi-gloss, then presented on the wall without glass or frame. Most go un-signed.
I'm sure most of you know what I'm describing.
All those doing it cite the same reasons about no glare, can clean the surface, and other advantages over traditional matting/framing under glass.
Two questions:
In the future, will these be as collectible as traditional presentation methods, irregardless of the photogs fame?
Would you buy one for yourself?
DT

 

[photographs42]

No one can know for sure what the future holds. My personal felling is that these are décor as opposed to collectable art. On the other hand, there are many things that are now considered collectable art that I don’t even consider decent décor.

I wouldn’t buy it, but I’m kind of picky.
Jerome

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

One man's fine art is another man's placemat, as they say.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm rather puzzled by what you mean by "On the show circuit these days".

Over the years I've been to a great many exhibitions and yes images flush mounted on wood or metal, usually aluminium, but never laminated as well. At major exhibitions where work is being shown from collections around the world then flush mounted unframed prints are rarer.

Simon Norfolk had some very large prints at an exhibition 2 years ago, and the paper was just pinned to the wall untrimmed and unmounted so there;s no real rules. But collectors ideally want prints that are protected by in a window mount.

I do buy original prints and I would have to think very carefully about buying a permanently mounted print anyway let alone flush mounted & laminated, I'd guess no.

Ian

 

[Sparky]

Prints pinned to the wall is a standard that's been going since the late 70s from what I recall. I think it works pretty well for large prints. I think it's really up to the 'artiste' how they prefer their work to be shown. To each their own indeed. I cringe when I see people sign their work. To me - it's like making up a one-word name for yourself (i.e. christo, picasso, etc..)

 

[davetravis]

I'm rather puzzled by what you mean by "On the show circuit these days".

I'm talking about the juried art shows that I do around Colorado. Also known as art fairs. We that do them just call it "the circuit."
These hard-mounted prints on board appear to be very popular, but they cannot be finished to "museum archival" standards.
Who knows how the adhesives will affect the image over time?

 

[wilsonneal]

... I cringe when I see people sign their work. To me - it's like making up a one-word name for yourself (i.e. christo, picasso, etc..)

This is interesting to me. What don't you like about a photographer's signature on a print? What do others think about this? I've always signed my prints but would be interested to hear other thoughts.
Neal

 

[patrickjames]

I couldn't imagine not signing a print, even if you are just signing the back to keep the front of the print clean. The signature authenticates it as being yours and also as being finished. Historically signed prints are far more valuable than unsigned prints.

Patrick

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Unless the presentation is supportive, I don't like photographers signatures on the front of a print, because usually there's not enough margin for it to look good, and it also brings into question the archival quality, because most paper surfaces won't accept pencil on the front.

 

[Jim Noel]

WHen I see prints with the clear plastic laminate on them, I walk on by until I find a print I can see correctly. I would never buy one. I believe prints should be finished with an overmat, but am not adverse to unmounted prints on a wall.

Large collectors generally prefer prints which are not dry-mounted to a board because this significantly increases storage problems.

 

[jpeets]

In the future, will these be as collectible as traditional presentation methods,
DT

These are, as previously noted, decor pieces.

I have been doing the local "circuit", and when I try to explain about archival printing/matting, editioning, etc., most people's eyes glaze over ...... they either like an image and its presentation or don't. I suspect that for the vast majority of "art fair" buyers, collectibility isn't on the radar, but cost, and fit with furnishings and paint is

Although I do number and edition my prints, I think that unless you are in the top tier of fine art photography, "collectibility" (implying increased value over time) is zero. There are a hellluva lot of photographers peddling their wares, and very, very few will ever develop a following or reputation that will cause their prints to become collectible, and appreciate in value, in their lifetimes or afterwards.

Jaan

 

[davetravis]

I have been doing the local "circuit", and when I try to explain about archival printing/matting, editioning, etc., most people's eyes glaze over ...... they either like an image and its presentation or don't. I suspect that for the vast majority of "art fair" buyers, collectibility isn't on the radar, but cost, and fit with furnishings and paint is


You got that right!
Do you believe that one's fame will determine the future value of the print, all by itself, regardless of the presentation?
What about hand made versus commercial print from that same photog?
DT

 

[jpeets]

Do you believe that one's fame will determine the future value of the print, all by itself, regardless of the presentation?
What about hand made versus commercial print from that same photog?
DT

No, fame alone won't determine the value of a print.

My point is that unless you are in that top tier, your prints won't be collectible, nor will they be a commodity that will appreciate in value.

When selling your prints, the primary criteria from the typical buyer's perspective will be aesthetic, not technical, or investment value.

The last show I did, most photographers were doing slow/poor business. One booth had these laminated decor pieces (honestly labelled as photo decor) of color travel photography, and was packed the whole time.

Bottom line, if you are in the business of selling prints to an unsophisticated market (the majority of attendees at art/craft markets), your collectibility is irrelevant. Your images and presentation are crucial, and for those looking for interior decor pieces, marketable presentation is everything. From the various newsgroups, it appears that canvas wraps are the hot photo thing these days. Hardly conservation technique, eh?

If you are dealing with galleries, and working with a sophisticated art crowd, that's totally different. Nonetheless, even there, I see more and more shows where prints are not matted and framed, but pinned (as mentioned above) or surface mounted to gatorboard or other stiff material, with no glass.:confused:



Jaan

 

[davetravis]

Jaan,
Seems like you've really got it figured out!
I've had shows like that too, and they really make me think about "being like everyone else."
I'm not so egotistical to believe that I will be famous or actively collected someday, but yet I continue to seek out that sophisticated buyer that appreciates the difference between hand-made and commercial prints.
I don't do galleries for greedy reasons!
To be honest, in 4 years of doing the shows, I've never met another guy doing Ilfochromes, and that is too bad.
I get "dinosaur" comments all the time.
And I agree with you, most folks just want to decorate their walls, and don't really care about the presentation.
Good luck with your shows in the future.
DT

 

[Sparky]

This is interesting to me. What don't you like about a photographer's signature on a print? What do others think about this? I've always signed my prints but would be interested to hear other thoughts.
Neal

I think that signing your print, or your painting, or your sculpture is a little bit pretentious (not attacking here - it's just my unique issue - and here's why) since it assumes the idea of 'creation'. That you are the unique 'creator' and have pulled the idea from a vacuum. In the early sixties, when a lot of artists stopped doing this, it was out of deference to, or recognition of the fact that ideas do not come out of thin air, but out of a collective dialogue. We build art upon the works of others and without those other works being in existence, ours would be meaningless. And therefore the project is collective. And therefore to sign it as 'your own' would be misleading - at best. No idea comes from a vacuum.

 

[Sparky]

but having a stamp or some sort of certificate of authenticity or a receipt for the purchase of the work is just great, and necessary, IMO.

 

[jpeets]

Jaan,
Seems like you've really got it figured out!
DT

Far from it, and I hope I didn't give the impression that I think so.

APUG is a art/craft/quality orientated community, and I suggest that we do what we do out of respect for our art and our craft. I just suspect that few of us will be so well recognized that our prints will appreciate in value, and be "collectible".

Just do your thing, do it well, and if it sells, great.

If you have a unique product, like Ilfochromes, that could be a great "hook" - like you say, you haven't run into another Ilfochrome printer.

Best of luck with your shows too. No matter what, photography is a tough sell.

Jaan

Jaan

 

[roteague]

And I agree with you, most folks just want to decorate their walls, and don't really care about the presentation.

One of the reasons why the circuit never appealed to me. Most people eat at McDonalds, I don't. In the same way, I don't shoot, print, or prepare my prints. You are right, it is sad.

 

[JBrunner]

but having a stamp or some sort of certificate of authenticity or a receipt for the purchase of the work is just great, and necessary, IMO.

My signature is the stamp. I made it. Props to Jung, but it channeled through me.

 

[davetravis]

Best of luck with your shows too. No matter what, photography is a tough sell.


Right again man!
Down here we say "see ya down the road"
DT

 

[Sparky]

My signature is the stamp. I made it. Props to Jung, but it channeled through me.

Hey - good response. I'm not trying to suggest that my approach is the only one - not for a second. It's just the way that I see things - among a sea of other points of view...

 

[JBrunner]

Hey - good response. I'm not trying to suggest that my approach is the only one - not for a second. It's just the way that I see things - among a sea of other points of view...

Me neither. Life is beautiful.

 

[Sparky]

In the same way that a stock's success has nothing to do with the success of it's corresponding corporation - collectibility has next to nothing to do with 'archival preparation' or craft. It has only to do (if we're talking about a collector's desire to own) with (1) how much the collector finds a kinship or connection with the image presented to them and (2) the 'status' of the name within a given community of collectors. It seems as though people think that their work will acquire a de facto value through the act of being well-crafted. These are totally separate issues. The craft should occur because the author wants to see their work clearly and because they are proud. To expect remuneration for your toiling, however, is just unrealistic I think.

 

[JBrunner]

The most valuable thing I have on my wall, is a calender. Not a photograph, litho, or painting, although those are on the wall too. (Miss Golden Dreams, Mint, with all the months.)

 

[jpeets]

It seems as though people think that their work will acquire a de facto value through the act of being well-crafted.

Perhaps craftsmanship won't create value, but I will readily concede that poor craftsmanship can detract from the potential value of your work.

I have seen very creative images poorly printed and/or poorly framed, that I would not even think of buying, because the artist did not have enough pride in their work to present it well.

Also, anyone selling prints should be able to assure the buyer that the work is not ephemeral. I had a couple complain to me recently that they had paid a lot for a pair of color prints in the 80's that faded quickly - they were very dubious about buying more "fine art" prints. Care and craft do matter.

Jaan