They will no longer be "original prints." And I agree. This is absurd.
Will she recall the original prints from owners? Can't be done.
They will no longer be "original prints." And I agree. This is absurd.Do purchasers of her original prints have recourse to sue her for depreciating the value of the print they bought, especially if they were sold as let's say one of 50? After all, when you produce additional quantities, you decrease the value as they're less scarce.
Will she recall the original prints from owners? Can't be done.She will destroy the original old prints so the number of total prints in circulation will stay the same
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.
The argument that follows remains in its core based on what your own, particular visual preference is. That's OK, but I don't think we can ever reach common ground on that basis, other than some not very interesting observations, like that many photographers strive to make pretty pictures.
Will she recall the original prints from owners? Can't be done.
They will no longer be "original prints." And I agree. This is absurd.
Will she recall the original prints from owners? Can't be done.
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...?
Also, that fee is waived for institutions. There's no sign of greed being a motive in this at all. Wanting to preserve the visibility of her work, yes. She likely has seen some prints that have degraded and genuinely doesn't like it.
One of the best points made so far.
I believe Don is correct , it probably pisses her off that the prints are fading and she is trying to do something about it.
Most other artists I know silently behind the scenes replace the prints.
The challenge with insisting on a reprint of older work is when we're talking about prints worth seven figures the artist is usually long out of the picture. This is Bezos selling a print via an auction house to Musk, and the artist has no say in what happens with their work. In this case Sherman is making a public offer to make the owner of her work happier with their print by reprinting it.Say I paid 3 million for a print, and it starts to fade. I'd insist the artist create a new print using the original method. If I already paid 3 million another $10k isn't going to bother me much. However I would insist that the original fading print not be destroyed. It can be defaced to the point that it's not worth anything on the market or even given to a museum but to wholesale destroy it I'd not want to be part of that.
Say I paid 3 million for a print, and it starts to fade. I'd insist the artist create a new print using the original method. If I already paid 3 million another $10k isn't going to bother me much. However I would insist that the original fading print not be destroyed. It can be defaced to the point that it's not worth anything on the market or even given to a museum but to wholesale destroy it I'd not want to be part of that.
Why? It’s just a print, and you have the nice new one.
Why? It’s just a print, and you have the nice new one.
From the era involved, the Cindy prints hypothetically being replaced would have most likely been ordinary commercial quality optically enlarged Kodak C prints. I've seen a number of those. Competently done, but nothing special. This paper didn't respond as well to laser enlargement as current Fuji papers. Banding was also a typical symptom of early Lambda prints. Of course, everything did, and still does, depend on the skill of the specific operator involved.
Framing? It's disgusting how much that has slipped into mediocrity even with photography making pretense to high value.
People of my generation (millennials) put a lot into the old hand processed stuff.
What? 1% of them, if that? I doubt they're any more "into it" than any other generation at this point. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand, anyway.
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.
From the era involved, the Cindy prints hypothetically being replaced would have most likely been ordinary commercial quality optically enlarged Kodak C prints. I've seen a number of those. Competently done, but nothing special. This paper didn't respond as well to laser enlargement as current Fuji papers. Banding was also a typical symptom of early Lambda prints. Of course, everything did, and still does, depend on the skill of the specific operator involved.
Framing? It's disgusting how much that has slipped into mediocrity even with photography making pretense to high value.
I believe Don is correct , it probably pisses her off that the prints are fading and she is trying to do something about it.
Most other artists I know silently behind the scenes replace the prints.
And the likely certification from Ms. Sherman authenticating its extremely individual provenance.
She's charging $10,000 per picture from the goodness of her heart? Such generosity!
What's wrong with her making money?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?