To help preserve her works, Cindy Sherman is offering to destroy and reprint old photographs

[logan2z]

Interesting initiative...

To help preserve her works, Cindy Sherman is offering to destroy and reprint old photographs

The new initiative aims to stabilise fragile media and could serve as a model for other artists

www.theartnewspaper.com

 

[Chuck1]

Lifetime warranty

 

[koraks]

This is not the first time I hear of a similar exercise. I spoke to someone working in the field of photographic conservation and she was appalled by the offer of that particular photographer (I forgot who it was; it was a man, that's all I recall). Her point of concern was that chromogenic prints were replaced by pigment inkjet prints. She argued that it's just not the same thing and that the fact that the new print may be more durable doesn't do away with the fact that the original artwork at that point is lost to its owner. It's a bit like grandfather's axe to the extreme.

 

[warden]

Now that's fascinating, thanks for sharing! I'm honestly not sure what I'd do if I was fortunate enough to own a big ticket Sherman print, especially if it was in just-good-enough original condition.

 

[Arthurwg]

Oh God no.

 

[0x001688936CA08]

The process carries a one-off administrative fee of $10,000, plus production and shipping costs.

How generous.

 

[nikos79]

When you think you have seen it all...

To help preserve her works, Cindy Sherman is offering to destroy and reprint old photographs

The new initiative aims to stabilise fragile media and could serve as a model for other artists

www.theartnewspaper.com

"Through the CSLP, collectors can submit Sherman works for assessment at a facility in New York. If a print is deemed eligible, the original—accompanied by its title, edition number, date and provenance—will be destroyed and replaced with a mint-condition, artist-signed reprint. Each reprint is reviewed and approved by Sherman. The process carries a one-off administrative fee of $10,000, plus production and shipping costs."


I wonder how long more can they milk that cow

 

[nikos79]

How generous.

 

[logan2z]

How generous.

FWIW, that only applies to private collectors:

"While the submission fee applies to private collectors, Lee confirmed it is waived for non-profit institutions and museums, who pay only for production and shipping"

 

[nikos79]

What a great business plan. It is all about money. If you can't have scarcity create it. Are you that naive to think that the reason behind destroying the old copy is to keep the integrity of the new reprint? Come on it is all about increasing the value of the reprint and her brand name, since they can't be both simultaneously in the market.

 

[nikos79]

If she really cared about her legacy and not the brand name she could release high-resolution scans of all her works into the public domain rather than curate scarcity.

 

[nikos79]

Not to mention the poor collectors who have clearly being told:
"“Hey your investment is deteriorating, but you can pay again $10,000 to preserve its value!"
I can only imagine their frustration

 

[warden]

This is not the first time I hear of a similar exercise. I spoke to someone working in the field of photographic conservation and she was appalled by the offer of that particular photographer (I forgot who it was; it was a man, that's all I recall). Her point of concern was that chromogenic prints were replaced by pigment inkjet prints. She argued that it's just not the same thing and that the fact that the new print may be more durable doesn't do away with the fact that the original artwork at that point is lost to its owner. It's a bit like grandfather's axe to the extreme.

Yes, and the article uses phrases like “stabilize fragile media” when I think they mean “destroy fragile media”. One of the curators said “It’s a thoughtful intervention in the evolving relationship between photography and conservation” but it sounds like they’re actually giving up on conservation altogether, unless I’m missing something. It would be a real shame to replace a Sherman gelatin silver, even a faded one, with a reinterpreted inkjet. It’s a different product altogether.

Film Still #21 sold for about a half million dollars at auction, and there are only three of them. Destruction/replacement of one of the three would affect the value of all three. I imagine the remaining two would experience an increase in value due to increased rarity but who knows. And only the market can tell us the value of the replaced one. I’m guessing less valuable.

 

[lecarp]

Or, could have been made and handled properly in the first place! Conservation begins with the artist.
And, many processes are made more beautiful by natural aging!

 

[Cholentpot]

Yes, and the article uses phrases like “stabilize fragile media” when I think they mean “destroy fragile media”. One of the curators said “It’s a thoughtful intervention in the evolving relationship between photography and conservation” but it sounds like they’re actually giving up on conservation altogether, unless I’m missing something. It would be a real shame to replace a Sherman gelatin silver, even a faded one, with a reinterpreted inkjet. It’s a different product altogether.

Film Still #21 sold for about a half million dollars at auction, and there are only three of them. Destruction/replacement of one of the three would affect the value of all three. I imagine the remaining two would experience an increase in value due to increased rarity but who knows. And only the market can tell us the value of the replaced one. I’m guessing less valuable.

'Film Still #21'

I looked this up. How THE FRANKS HOTSAUCE did this sell for a half million?

I don't get it. It looks like any dreck that any schmuck can do. I have zero formal training and have taken far more creative and engaging photos than that. There's nothing in that photo whatsoever that calls the slightest bit of creativity to me. Other than being properly exposed there's not much there.

Pretty young female with contrasted shadow on part of face being mirrored on buildings behind her. Can I ask the elders here. Before this photo was taken was this kind of photo never taken? Was this truly ground breaking and innovative for the times? I'm perplexed.

 

[0x001688936CA08]

'Film Still #21'

I looked this up. How THE FRANKS HOTSAUCE did this sell for a half million?

I don't get it. It looks like any dreck that any schmuck can do.

The value of art has nothing to do with the skill required to create it. Literally nothing. And generally speaking it also has nothing to do with uniqueness or innovation.

Most photography as art is nothing special in terms of technical skill or materials. Subject matter is what people actually care about.

 

[warden]

'Film Still #21'

I looked this up. How THE FRANKS HOTSAUCE did this sell for a half million?

I don't get it. It looks like any dreck that any schmuck can do. I have zero formal training and have taken far more creative and engaging photos than that. There's nothing in that photo whatsoever that calls the slightest bit of creativity to me. Other than being properly exposed there's not much there.

Pretty young female with contrasted shadow on part of face being mirrored on buildings behind her. Can I ask the elders here. Before this photo was taken was this kind of photo never taken? Was this truly ground breaking and innovative for the times? I'm perplexed.

There has been plenty of scholarly writing about Sherman‘s work and it’s pretty easy to find online, but here’s a link to the auction I was referring to that includes a brief and accessible introduction to this work.

Cindy Sherman Modern & Contemporary Art: Evening & Day Sale

Discover Cindy Sherman's Untitled Film Still #21 featured in Phillips' Discover {{lotDescription}} in Phillips' Modern & Contemporary Art: Evening & Day Sale in London. Browse, bid, and explore art, design, and luxury at Phillips. in {{location}}. Browse, bid, and explore art, design, and luxury...

www.phillips.com

 

[Don_ih]

Before this photo was taken was this kind of photo never taken?

That's right.

It's not the single photo that creates the value but the entire project. You may be "more creative" but good luck getting the world to think so.

That photo series is amazing. If you can't see it, there's nothing to say.

I don't like the idea of "destroy the original and provide an inkjet print". It seems very disrespectful. Imagine if someone said, "Oh, those Atget albumen prints you have are fading and showing sign of chemical deterioration. Let's scan then, print them on the Canon Pixma, then burn the originals."

 

[Cholentpot]

The value of art has nothing to do with the skill required to create it. Literally nothing. And generally speaking it also has nothing to do with uniqueness or innovation.

Most photography as art is nothing special in terms of technical skill or materials. Subject matter is what people actually care about.

There has been plenty of scholarly writing about Sherman‘s work and it’s pretty easy to find online, but here’s a link to the auction I was referring to that includes a brief and accessible introduction to this work.

Cindy Sherman Modern & Contemporary Art: Evening & Day Sale

Discover Cindy Sherman's Untitled Film Still #21 featured in Phillips' Discover {{lotDescription}} in Phillips' Modern & Contemporary Art: Evening & Day Sale in London. Browse, bid, and explore art, design, and luxury at Phillips. in {{location}}. Browse, bid, and explore art, design, and luxury...

www.phillips.com

That's right.

It's not the single photo that creates the value but the entire project. You may be "more creative" but good luck getting the world to think so.

That photo series is amazing. If you can't see it, there's nothing to say.

I don't like the idea of "destroy the original and provide an inkjet print". It seems very disrespectful. Imagine if someone said, "Oh, those Atget albumen prints you have are fading and showing sign of chemical deterioration. Let's scan then, print them on the Canon Pixma, then burn the originals."

So this is a real life Emperor's New Clothes situation.

Given the answers my opinion as an artist should also hold equal weight. The photo is complete quash. Couple that with trying to charge people 10k for an inkjet copy just confirms the vapidness of the artist.

Then again, if this is what you like go for it. Spend the half million to enrich the life of an artist. It's nothing on me, I'm not jealous or envious, I'm just perplexed.

 

[warden]

So this is a real life Emperor's New Clothes situation.

Given the answers my opinion as an artist should also hold equal weight. The photo is complete quash. Couple that with trying to charge people 10k for an inkjet copy just confirms the vapidness of the artist.

Then again, if this is what you like go for it. Spend the half million to enrich the life of an artist. It's nothing on me, I'm not jealous or envious, I'm just perplexed.

Of course your opinions hold equal weight. (On this forum, I mean. Not compared to art historians, of course.)

 

[0x001688936CA08]

So this is a real life Emperor's New Clothes situation.

Given the answers my opinion as an artist should also hold equal weight. The photo is complete quash. Couple that with trying to charge people 10k for an inkjet copy just confirms the vapidness of the artist.

Then again, if this is what you like go for it. Spend the half million to enrich the life of an artist. It's nothing on me, I'm not jealous or envious, I'm just perplexed.

Well opinions in general aren’t worth a whole lot.

In this case yours just tells me you don’t like Cindy Sherman’s picture, and don’t think it’s worth much.

Perhaps a good analogy is music… there are plenty of guitar nerds who can play technically challenging things that no one else can play, but they sound like shit to 99.99% of people. Then there are incredibly simple songs that people relate to and hold immense meaning.

Pictures are the same.

Eye of the beholder and all that.

 

[MattKing]

Threads merged.

While I like a lot of Cindy Sherman's work when I see it, because I find the ideas behind it and the execution of those ideas to have value, the subject of this thread has nothing to do with the images.
It has to do with the Art Market value of individual artifacts - the original prints, made in extremely limited quantities - and a possible way of preserving that value when and if the original artifact begins to deteriorate.
Who knows whether the Art Market will accept the substitution, and maintain the associated prices.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some things deserve to fade into oblivion.

 

[Cholentpot]

Well opinions in general aren’t worth a whole lot.

In this case yours just tells me you don’t like Cindy Sherman’s picture, and don’t think it’s worth much.

Perhaps a good analogy is music… there are plenty of guitar nerds who can play technically challenging things that no one else can play, but they sound like shit to 99.99% of people. Then there are incredibly simple songs that people relate to and hold immense meaning.

Pictures are the same.

Eye of the beholder and all that.

Good analogy.

So take a simple piece of music. For the people of the time it evokes feelings that may not translate to people of a different time. I can name dozens of tunes from bygone eras that haven't held up. However I can point to songs from the same era that also haven't held up but at least I can appreciate the technical prowess of the artists and their vision.

Time is the ultimate judge of art. Maybe classical geniuses were not appreciated in their day and their world touring peers are more or less forgotten these days. Maybe a foot note in history.

So back to the original point of the thread. Getting a 'new' print instead of holding onto an original. Is there any valid reason to do this?

 

[0x001688936CA08]

So back to the original point of the thread. Getting a 'new' print instead of holding onto an original. Is there any valid reason to do this?

The new for old switcheroo is questionable at best. Charging collectors $10k for an ersatz artwork, whilst also destroying the original, feels quite sleazy.

"Be a real shame if your valuable art was no longer in good condition. I've got a new project to make sure that doesn't happen."