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

[Don_ih]

As far as I know, that's only part of the triple task of most museums, which is to disclose, preserve and foster research.

I agree. I was contrasting it with the goal of the collector - who tends not to care about any of those things. And, at any rate, with a straightforward colour photo, a new print that is of the same quality and character as the original (when it was originally made) performs all those tasks. The question remains, though: are these newly printed prints of the same quality and character as the original?

I would find it more plausible if museums would accept a new version of the work for exhibition purposes while retaining the original copy in safe storage.

I agree with that, also. If the point is to have a copy for display, then the original should be reserved in storage. They would then need to pay the cost for a new print, though, since they would not be relinquishing the old one.

 

[koraks]

The question remains, though: are these newly printed prints of the same quality and character as the original?

Indeed; it reminded me immediately of the problem of grandfather's axe. Personally, I'd say 'no' - it's not the same artifact. From a distance, it may look the same as the original once did. But it's just not the same thing. Imagine your wife has an identical twin. She still wouldn't be the same person, even though she may look the same and perhaps even respond very similarly in social situations.

 

[Don_ih]

I wonder if Ms. Sherman will resist the option to "improve" on the to be destroyed original when the replacement is made?

That is a salient point, since her sensibilities will have drifted in any number of directions in the intervening years.

From a distance, it may look the same as the original once did. But it's just not the same thing.

Even without "improvements", it's a different object.

The idea that powers the ability to do this seems to be that the instance doesn't matter, since it's a rendering of a conceptual entity (the photo). But prints themselves matter to a lot of people (probably specifically to people who make prints). If an original was printed onto Ektalure, that can't really be reproduced. The paper itself, the emulsion, how it reacted to the developer, any toning - those are individual to that print (and the other prints in that run). You can't get that paper, with that texture, or that emulsion. The print as something of significance is disregarded by this program.

 

[koraks]

Exactly. And that's why I think that this thread is actually so interesting - because in the end, I feel it touches upon the heart of the matter of the purpose or relevance of analog photography today. I've often asked myself the 'why bother' question when it comes to the whole iffy business of paper, film and chemicals, while at the same time realizing that 'yes, I do bother'. And in the end, that 'botherage' has everything to do with the fundamental difference between 'class' and 'instance' (to borrow terminology from object oriented programming) and the fact that the instance is (1) unique and (2) the vehicle through which the class can have any practical meaning in the first place. So I'm kind of baffled that museums, collectors or anyone in general seem to be so casual in setting aside the instance and exchange it for another one.

 

[Don_ih]

It may only be done with a certain range of prints that have pretty much started to die, which were printed using a fairly mundane process, anyway. The description of the program may not end up being what it is ultimately used for. I strongly doubt anyone will be getting rid of original b&w prints, for instance.

 

[Carnie Bob]

This move by Cindy Sherman is going to be start a massive change in our industry, think of all the current and not so aged C Prints / Cibas by the likes of Gursky, Wall and many others that have sold recently, it is a problem for many of them and their representatives. I was at an artist talk just the other night and this subject was not spoken about in the talk , but afterwords it was a hot topic.
Some of these artist have silently been replacing the faded prints, but it is a royal PIA for those surrounding the work and trying to justify the replacements.

 

[Carnie Bob]

Exactly. And that's why I think that this thread is actually so interesting - because in the end, I feel it touches upon the heart of the matter of the purpose or relevance of analog photography today. I've often asked myself the 'why bother' question when it comes to the whole iffy business of paper, film and chemicals, while at the same time realizing that 'yes, I do bother'. And in the end, that 'botherage' has everything to do with the fundamental difference between 'class' and 'instance' (to borrow terminology from object oriented programming) and the fact that the instance is (1) unique and (2) the vehicle through which the class can have any practical meaning in the first place. So I'm kind of baffled that museums, collectors or anyone in general seem to be so casual in setting aside the instance and exchange it for another one.

I think I understand what you are saying, I have been at odds with this part of our industry now since the digital revolution. In the late 80's mounting a cprint onto a hard surface, then laminating the print , then put hanging bars on the back was strictly a commercial cheap application for advertising , now I see this in a large % of gallery shows and it really confuses me as to why?

 

[Don_ih]

If it's a material defect that will be rectified by replacement, it sort of makes sense. But it does underline the fact that those prints themselves are replaceable. So that, in a way, devalues the collectibility of photographs. They are not irreplaceable in the way a painting or sculpture is. This is even pushing them to be more replaceable than other printed media (like books and sports cards).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What sort of damages would those other purchasers be incurring? Probably none.
There is no increase in the number of prints over-all. If the original number of prints was limited, than that number remains limited.
And if there is any differentiation in value between the originals and the replacement, it would likely be to the favour of the holders of the originals, rather than the replacements.
And probably most importantly, there is nothing stopping Cindy Sherman from making entirely new work. The increase in the available pool of Cindy Sherman originals is the factor most likely to have an affect on the value of old work.

It's not the quantity, it;s the quality. If I had the best of her original prints and now she reprints others so the new ones are the best quality, the value of my old print could be reduced. Of course, the question is was there any assumption created that the original pictures wouldn't be upgraded when they were sold? In any case, this is just a way to make more money off your old work without considering the customers who bought your originals.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If Topps reissues perfect reproductions of currently valuable baseball cards (like Hank Aaron, Roger Maris, Babe Ruth), what impact does that have on the value of the vintage cards?

Collectors value those cards based on edition and condition (generally, first edition, first printing, and most-original condition is highest value). Would they opt to allow their grade 8 condition late-50's printed Roger Maris card be replaced by one printed today that was in perfect condition?

There's a real lack of understanding of collectors in the whole idea of this print-replacement scheme. It's fine to replace prints from someone who really doesn't matter, where the photos are socially and historically insignificant. You know, that's just refreshing the decor. Collectors, however, want artifacts. This idea disregards the idea that the print can itself be an artifact of value in favour of the idea that the photo (that which is printed) is what is of value.

Someone should inkjet print this photo (after a bit of photoshop to fix it a bit, of course):

View attachment 401255
and burn the original, which I hear is easily damaged by exposure to light. Clearly, a newly printed copy would be better.

Don, if the old ones retain their value as you argue over any new replacements, then why would anyone replace them with newer versions that are worth less and also have to pay for the privilege of doing it?

This is just a sleazy scheme for a photographer to make money at their customers' disadvantage.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I can understand why they would want to replace something that is essentially fading away into nothing. Conservation/preservation only works so far before you have to opt for reproduction - especially with things like film and photos that are chemically-produced. This option not only allows for the piece to be reproduced in a "fresh" state but also authenticated - the quality will be right, the colours will be right, the artist has approved the print. And a museum has a different goal than a collector. Museums have the goal of showing the work - of preserving it and keeping it safe but for the end result to be the availability of that work to the public. Collectors are more about the artifacts themselves - not what they mean or the viewing of them.

I can understand the arguments to an extent, but not entirely. You mention museums have the goal of exhibiting work. As far as I know, that's only part of the triple task of most museums, which is to disclose, preserve and foster research. Furthermore, what makes this challenging IMO is that the artist in this case seems to have an interest that conflicts with the interest of the owner of the work, and yet, some of the owners seem to opt to serve the interest of the maker instead of their own. I would find it more plausible if museums would accept a new version of the work for exhibition purposes while retaining the original copy in safe storage.

This would be like DiVinci coming back to life and offering the Louvre a completed version of the Mona Lisa for $355 million, eye brows and all, to replace the faded uncompleted original the museum owns that's worth $855 million. Leonardo, what a guy!

 

[koraks]

Well, he was a businessman for sure, I wouldn't put it past him! Good for him though.

 

[koraks]

now I see this in a large % of gallery shows and it really confuses me as to why?

Yeah, I'd say the 'hand made' aspect counts, assuming you're referring to optical enlargements and not digitally exposed "Lambda" etc prints. And here, too, the puzzling question is: if you take a Lambda/LightJet/etc C-print and put it next to an optical enlargement, and assuming the prints look more or less the same - are they fundamentally different? I feel they are, but I may not be able to tell them apart. What gives...?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This move by Cindy Sherman is going to be start a massive change in our industry, think of all the current and not so aged C Prints / Cibas by the likes of Gursky, Wall and many others that have sold recently, it is a problem for many of them and their representatives. I was at an artist talk just the other night and this subject was not spoken about in the talk , but afterwords it was a hot topic.
Some of these artist have silently been replacing the faded prints, but it is a royal PIA for those surrounding the work and trying to justify the replacements.

Bob, the entire industry will be thrown on its head. I was at an AIPAC meeting a few years ago in NYC where photo dealers from around the world sell their wares. Many sold Ansel Adams's and there were at least four of Ansel's Moonrise for sale with tens of thousands of dollars in difference depending on which print you bought. Can you imagine photographers reissuing all their photos? How can a market retain the value of pictures already bought? Frankly, it would destroy the photo market. Who in their right mind would spend so much money for a print only to have to have to worry that the photographer might reissue or replace prints of the same subject in future years?

 

[Don_ih]

Photos are already infinitely reproducible. What gives value for these reproduction is the one-two punch of authorize the new print and destroy the original. And I'm sure it is a very practical matter in some cases.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, he was a businessman for sure, I wouldn't put it past him! Good for him though.

The better trick is coming back to life.

 

[koraks]

There's definitely profit in that one, too.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Photos are already infinitely reproducible. What gives value for these reproduction is the one-two punch of authorize the new print and destroy the original. And I'm sure it is a very practical matter in some cases.

But it changes the value of all the other prints in circulation. How does a collector put a value on a photo they want to buy when the quality of the others issued changes over time? The greed of one photographer who reissues their photos, could destroy the entire photo market for other photographers as buyers will fear their photos will also be reissued in future years. That would destroy the value of the photo they purchased now. So they'll buy oils, not photo prints.