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

[MattKing]

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?

It is not all that unusual to encounter artists who, when they were starting, used inexpensive materials and relatively poor techniques, and as a result created work that deteriorates quickly.
It is a common enough story: the starving artist who labours for years, scraping together whatever they could afford to make their art, and making compromises along the way that result in art that is less permanent than it might be.

 

[F4U]

A fool and his money are soon parted.

 

[mshchem]

If you have a photo that's valued at $50,000+ and it's fading away maybe a bonefide resurrection of that print, even at a price is a really good thing???

Don't know. I don't have the resources to own original Cindy Sherman photos. That would be pretty cool!

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's just the era. Garden variety C prints were used for that kind of thing. I saw some of them. Neither the quality of the prints themselves, nor Cindy's compositions, particularly impressed me as being anything other than just another corny fad or artsy gimmick.

 

[nikos79]

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.

She is very good in promoting herself and selling the idea behind a photograph. If you ask me I find her art to be garbage, but I am the smallest minority here and in the world of art critics it seems. Her whole "art" screams fakeness to me.

 

[Don_ih]

It is not all that unusual to encounter artists who, when they were starting, used inexpensive materials and relatively poor techniques, and as a result created work that deteriorates quickly.

Which adds to the rarity and value of one of those early works, so attempts should be made to preserve it. I can understand the desire to have a copy to put on the wall, but that copy is not the original. I can't see collectors agreeing that any reproduction can have the value of the original.

 

[pentaxuser]

If you have a photo that's valued at $50,000+ and it's fading away maybe a bonefide resurrection of that print, even at a price is a really good thing???

In extremis this is similar to: If a national gallery's fire destroys all the works of a famous deceased painter do we allow the works to die or use files that we possess that allows us to reproduce the painter's former works for the enjoyment of that person's art

We don't or most of us don't, have a problem with the retention and duplication of key scientific docs in this way so why do we with photos?

Isn't a fair analogy this? If we have the theory of relativity written in Einstein's fair hand that's worth preserving but should it be destroyed, few would argue that reproductions of it should have been made for the benefit of humanity's knowledge of science So what different about photos or art?

pentaxuser

 

[nikos79]

A photograph is infinitely reproducible. This is the biggest problem for galleries that want to create value out of scarcity. This is the reason they resort to dubious or ridiculous methods like numbered prints, destroying the negatives, etc.

 

[Cholentpot]

A fool and his money are soon parted.

It's just the era. Garden variety C prints were used for that kind of thing. I saw some of them. Neither the quality of the prints themselves, nor Cindy's compositions, particularly impressed me as being anything other than just another corny fad or artsy gimmick.

She is very good in promoting herself and selling the idea behind a photograph. If you ask me I find her art to be garbage, but I am the smallest minority here and in the world of art critics it seems. Her whole "art" screams fakeness to me.

Glad to see I'm not alone in this insane world.

 

[Milpool]

It seems to me when you buy a work of art its unknown longevity is part of the deal.

I really don't understand why anyone with an original Sherman print would sign up for this.

 

[BobUK]

Are these original prints made on a printer/copier, or traditional dunking in chemical baths?

Have the originals become unstable and started deteriorating? Hence the replacement.

Was any archival processing faulty in the first place?

To my thinking, it would make a farce out of any limited numbering system. I have read of photographers and engravers making limited runs for sale, then destroying the originals.


Depending upon an individuals point of view, the whole thing could put potential buyers off. Future sales could be damaged.

From what I have read here, this has not been given enough thought by the producers.

 

[nikos79]

It seems to me when you buy a work of art its unknown longevity is part of the deal.

I really don't understand why anyone with an original Sherman print would sign up for this.

Because he is forced to, otherwise his print will lose its value over time since a newer, artist approved, better quality print will replace it

 

[nikos79]

Because he is forced to, otherwise his print will lose its value over time since a newer, artist approved, better quality print will replace it

Of course the value is not the artistic value but the market value.

 

[Carnie Bob]

This replacement print tactic has been going on for quite a long time and is usually hidden from the public, this is a common thing for people like me to encounter, just last month I had to replace a 20 year old print for a collector who purchased work from an artist in Vancouver. As a gallery owner and frame and printing shop this is a very common thing over the last while. I wonder how the artist would feel if they realized that time will only tell whether inkjets will last forever as the Epson and other Inkjet manufacturers marketing departments will tell us smucks. How many here remember the 200 year guarantee Ciba Gigy was marketing?

There is a reason I have moved to gum bichromate layered prints over palladium , and pt pd prints for my business mode ( I feel there is a good chance the work I do in these fields will last the a good test of time.)
For the first 30 years of my professional career I printed for others/ galleries/ collections on C print and Cibachrome. In that first time I cannot recall much of that work not fading. The time line for my career has allowed me to shift from a complete analogue print methodology to a now hybrid method of printing using materials that historically last a substantial test of time.

I wonder what type of print Cindy Sherman is moving too with her dedicated lab , I hope not Canson fine art archival pigment bamboo prints.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

pretty tricky way to make more money from old customers. She shouldreplacewhat deteriorated prematurely for free!

 

[TJones]

If her gelatin silver prints from the 70’s are “particularly vulnerable to fading and deterioration”, and a private collector is being charged $10,000 to have the problem “fixed”, I’d be shocked if lawyers don’t get involved at some point.

 

[warden]

Glad to see I'm not alone in this insane world.

Let’s just hope this approach doesn’t spread to sanctified Photrio favorite photographers. The site would crash if the Ansel Adams trust made a similar announcement.

 

[Cholentpot]

Let’s just hope this approach doesn’t spread to sanctified Photrio favorite photographers. The site would crash if the Ansel Adams trust made a similar announcement.

Ansel is a hero to me, I can understand why some would find his stuff boring but at least you can see the effort put into the art. Now start with Annie Lebowitz - post 1970's - and see what happens.

pretty tricky way to make more money from old customers. She shouldreplacewhat deteriorated prematurely for free!

Any darkroom print that I make and sell gets a replacement guarantee if it fades. I thought this was standard practice. I mean I do have a cutoff, if someone come to me in 50 years I'm not dragging out the enlarger. But to a reasonable point I'll make another copy. Although I generally have two copies anyhow, one I sell and the other sits in the dark somewhere. And I also always give the customer a second copy that is made via printer. Just nice to have just in case. And a digital file if requested. Because again, I'm a nice guy not looking to fleece a customer.

 

[koraks]

I wonder what type of print Cindy Sherman is moving too with her dedicated lab , I hope not Canson fine art archival pigment bamboo prints.

The odds are 99% that it's exactly that, though. Well, not entirely. I it's probably Hahnemühle, not Canson. But pigment inkjet all the same.

 

[pentaxuser]

Of course the value is not the artistic value but the market value.

Can you say what is used when establishing artistic value? I have often wondered

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[nikos79]

Can you say what is used when establishing artistic value? I have often wondered

Thanks

pentaxuser

It is mostly subjective opinion. But then it is weird that there is something that we can call objectively subjective.
For example if thousands of people come to appreciate Bach and when I hear it I only hear drums and noise, then if I am smart, I might understand that there is some value behind it, it is just that I am not much accustomed to the language of music to appreciate and enjoy it.

When most acclaimed photographers and critics have praised Walker Evans I often wondered what is there that I cannot see. The truth was that indeed I could not see yet. As you get more into art or photography you come to appreciate the unique language of each creator. I still struggle to appreciate and understand Walker Evans but now I am beginning to dig the surface of his work.

There are other works though such as Cindy Sherman's where there is nothing to dig, everything is on the surface plain and boring. And if some artists exclaimed it, I can come up with some quieter voices that called her work received recognition disproportionately to its value.

When you say though critics and photographers you should be careful about it. In the past there were many people who really knew much about photography like John Szarkowksy, Louis Stettner, Sid Grossman, etc, who also themselves have been photographers. Their opinion mattered greatly to me.

Nowadays the majority of critics have nothing to do with photography, I doubt if they ever have lifted a camera, yet they have to invent exo-photographic terms to approach photography, such as concept, meaning, innovation.

In the modern world you have to be careful who you listen to acknowledge the artistic value of a photograph. I could give you some names but perhaps better not.

 

[Cholentpot]

It is mostly subjective opinion. But then it is weird that there is something that we can call objectively subjective.
For example if thousands of people come to appreciate Bach and when I hear it I only hear drums and noise, then if I am smart, I might understand that there is some value behind it, it is just that I am not much accustomed to the language of music to appreciate and enjoy it.

When most acclaimed photographers and critics have praised Walker Evans I often wondered what is there that I cannot see. The truth was that indeed I could not see yet. As you get more into art or photography you come to appreciate the unique language of each creator. I still struggle to appreciate and understand Walker Evans but now I am beginning to dig the surface of his work.

There are other works though such as Cindy Sherman's where there is nothing to dig, everything is on the surface plain and boring. And if some artists exclaimed it, I can come up with some quieter voices that called her work received recognition disproportionately to its value.

When you say though critics and photographers you should be careful about it. In the past there were many people who really knew much about photography like John Szarkowksy, Louis Stettner, Sid Grossman, etc, who also themselves have been photographers. Their opinion mattered greatly to me.

Nowadays the majority of critics have nothing to do with photography, I doubt if they ever have lifted a camera, yet they have to invent exo-photographic terms to approach photography, such as concept, meaning, innovation.

In the modern world you have to be careful who you listen to acknowledge the artistic value of a photograph. I could give you some names but perhaps better not.

I have zero formal photographic education. And the internet doesn't always help these days, many works are locked behind paywalls or not publicly available. I can only go by what catches my eye and tickles my brain. Walker Evans? Yep, I can see the worth. At least to the way I see the world. I've seen his work, never attributed it to a name. So hop onto google and get myself educated.

I do see though that many instances of art, particularly photography needs time to sort out what's genuinely good work and what's fickle flash in the pan. A photographer that was lauded in their day might not have the legs to carry them through to the next generation. Some never get any recognition until long after they're gone.

The one thing that rankles me is when someone points out that a work of the past is lacking and they're either called uneducated or ill informed. Sometimes a fresh perspective can deviate from the accepted truths. The names of photographers mean nothing to me more or less, I don't really care who did the work generally. I'm afforded this gift of ignorance.

 

[nikos79]

I have zero formal photographic education. And the internet doesn't always help these days, many works are locked behind paywalls or not publicly available. I can only go by what catches my eye and tickles my brain. Walker Evans? Yep, I can see the worth. At least to the way I see the world. I've seen his work, never attributed it to a name. So hop onto google and get myself educated.

I do see though that many instances of art, particularly photography needs time to sort out what's genuinely good work and what's fickle flash in the pan. A photographer that was lauded in their day might not have the legs to carry them through to the next generation. Some never get any recognition until long after they're gone.

The one thing that rankles me is when someone points out that a work of the past is lacking and they're either called uneducated or ill informed. Sometimes a fresh perspective can deviate from the accepted truths. The names of photographers mean nothing to me more or less, I don't really care who did the work generally. I'm afforded this gift of ignorance.

I think we found on you the ignorant with the wisdom we have been looking for to finally proclaim that the king (or the queen in our case) is naked!

P.S. A bit off topic but curious to hear how you perceive Walker Evans
P.S. Also my photographic education is not formal in the sense of college, school etc. but through Internet, books, and mostly studying next to a very good independent teacher

 

[koraks]

There are other works though such as Cindy Sherman's where there is nothing to dig, everything is on the surface plain and boring

Or you just don't see it (yet). Apparently it happened to you with Evans. Maybe it can happen again. Not if you believe that your growth is complete of course. That one is definitely up to you.

 

[nikos79]

Or you just don't see it (yet). Apparently it happened to you with Evans. Maybe it can happen again. Not if you believe that your growth is complete of course. That one is definitely up to you.

Maybe, never say never. Although it comes to be that if I happen to appreciate both Walker Evans and Cindy Sherman I might have a bipolar disorder