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

[DREW WILEY]

"Plow and cultivate the soul", nikos? - Looks like a pretty shallow dry well in this case.

 

[Cholentpot]

So, really. What's the problem with charging a fee to do that? When one of her prints sold for $3.9 million, it wasn't just after she printed it. That's not what she sold it for.

I guess you think she should do it for nothing for private collectors. She's already not charging institutions.

What's wrong with her making money?

Because if I did this my clients would be hopping mad. 'You sold me a print and it faded and now you want to charge me for another?'

 

[Dave Lusby]

If, like me, you don't like her work, then the debate over re-issuing the prints, is entirely moot. Bad art is bad art, even if it's a new print. The debate here seems to be about her work as an investment, and its long term return, rather than its intrinsic artistic value.

 

[MattKing]

Because if I did this my clients would be hopping mad. 'You sold me a print and it faded and now you want to charge me for another?'

Do you sell extremely limited edition prints, and provide authentication of their rarity? If so, do you charge anything close to what Ms. Sherman charges for that?

 

[nikos79]

"Plow and cultivate the soul", nikos? - Looks like a pretty shallow dry well in this case.

Yes, maybe a bad idea to mix Tarkovsky and Sherman

 

[Don_ih]

Because if I did this my clients would be hopping mad. 'You sold me a print and it faded and now you want to charge me for another?'

Hopping mad? Anyone can look up the material used and see that it is subject to fading.

The fact that the fee is waived for institutions suggests that this service is mostly for them.

 

[nikos79]

To my own view treating photography as something like painting is comical. Accept it or not photography and film are infinitely reproducible by default and all efforts to put value onto the print (by colouring it, limited numbers, destroying the negatives) I find it a bit weird to say at least. But as long as collectors pay money and some very few photographers get rich is great.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Nothing i actually admire her.

It might not be relevant at all but nevertheless I will share two quotes by Andrei Tarkovsky:

"The particular function of art is not, as often claimed, to propagate ideas, to transmit thoughts, to serve as an example. The purpose of art is to prepare a person for death, to plough and cultivate his soul, turning it towards the good."

"Indeed, it's so easy to shoot a scene beautifully just for effect, for the praise of others... However, it's enough to take just one step in this direction, and you're lost."

I love this post , the third paragraph is amazing.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Hopping mad? Anyone can look up the material used and see that it is subject to fading.

The fact that the fee is waived for institutions suggests that this service is mostly for them.

At the time she would have printed her work, the manufacturers were claiming the process would last hundreds of years, she was duped as was all of us working in the industry back in the 70's and 80's. My lab Silvershack was a direct outcome of my hatred of the fading prints, 20-30 years of work gone now.

 

[Bob Carnie]

To my own view treating photography as something like painting is comical. Accept it or not photography and film are infinitely reproducible by default and all efforts to put value onto the print (by colouring it, limited numbers, destroying the negatives) I find it a bit weird to say at least. But as long as collectors pay money and some very few photographers get rich is great.

I have found that with multilayered gum bichromate over palladium, I cannot reproduce a single print, each one is different. Gum process could in fact not be considered photographic as it is a hardening and washoff process.

 

[Cholentpot]

Do you sell extremely limited edition prints, and provide authentication of their rarity? If so, do you charge anything close to what Ms. Sherman charges for that?

Believe it or not, even small timers can and do sell limited edition prints with authentication. And I don't charge what Ms. Sherm charges because sadly I'm not in on the grift. But if I was I'd be charging as much as I can and pulling the same schtick she is. Oh, it looks like your limited edition autographed authenticated print might be fading, I can have it replaced for a slight fee.

Hopping mad? Anyone can look up the material used and see that it is subject to fading.

The fact that the fee is waived for institutions suggests that this service is mostly for them.

Anyone doesn't. Photographers understand the jargon, customer just wants a picture on their wall. Please keep out of direct sunlight doesn't seem to get into their brains either.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Believe it or not, even small timers can and do sell limited edition prints with authentication. And I don't charge what Ms. Sherm charges because sadly I'm not in on the grift. But if I was I'd be charging as much as I can and pulling the same schtick she is. Oh, it looks like your limited edition autographed authenticated print might be fading, I can have it replaced for a slight fee.



Anyone doesn't. Photographers understand the jargon, customer just wants a picture on their wall. Please keep out of direct sunlight doesn't seem to get into their brains either.

So if you did what she's doing, your clients would be hopping mad, yet you acknowledge that you would do the exact same thing she's doing, if only you could. Is that about right?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bob - Cindy is all about parody. I assume that if a comic or clown is especially good, they deserve to be paid well. Just depends on the audience. I just don't happen to be in that particular audience. Vaudeville circus acts aren't my thing, nor stand-up "selfie" comedians.

And yes, anyone who believes any kind of photographic print can just be replaced at will has a very generic mentality indeed. Even when I make an "ordinary" silver gelatin or RA4 print, or Ciba in the past, there was always a best one a little different, or a couple best ones, yet not exactly the same. I wouldn't even want them exactly the same. The majority of my images are represented by two prints at the most. "Limited edition" - hah! By the time I get around to reprinting the same image, perhaps years later, the specific medium might well have changed anyway, and the result will inevitably be a little different. And these are prints by my own hand. That's what counts.

But don't put all your eggs in one basket. Gum prints aren't necessarily permanent either. If you want to see a selection of seriously UV-resistant pigments, look at the surface of Mars. And nowadays, abusive display lighting high in UV is the norm. Even the Sphinx of Egypt, or the Pyramids, would look in terrible condition today to its original craftsmen.

 

[MattKing]

Believe it or not, even small timers can and do sell limited edition prints with authentication. And I don't charge what Ms. Sherm charges because sadly I'm not in on the grift. But if I was I'd be charging as much as I can and pulling the same schtick she is. Oh, it looks like your limited edition autographed authenticated print might be fading, I can have it replaced for a slight fee.

I've no reason to doubt that you do.
If your normal print price for a limited edition authenticated print is 1/25 of Cindy Sherman's, then one would suppose you would charge 1/25 of that $10,000.00 fee. $400 seems fair to me.

 

[Arthurwg]

If, like me, you don't like her work, then the debate over re-issuing the prints, is entirely moot. Bad art is bad art, even if it's a new print. The debate here seems to be about her work as an investment, and its long term return, rather than its intrinsic artistic value.

+1

 

[Arthurwg]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think Cindy and/or her gallery could be open to lawsuits. Print buyers would have a reasonable expectation that the pictures they bought would be "archival" and lasting. I would imagine they were presented as such. Indeed, that failure could be considered a fraud.

 

[koraks]

Cindy and/or her gallery could be open to lawsuits

I don't think so.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Arthuwg - "archival" is first of all a rather recent expectation, and even at that, frequently either misunderstood or outright misrepresented for marketing reasons. Any dealer who gives a longevity guarantee to any photo or painting is being unrealistic,
because they don't have any control over what will happen to it next. Commercial venues even tend to display photos under abusive lighting conditions, and are often otherwise careless with them. Each time I was offered the opportunity to be displayed in this or that gallery, I first wanted to see their back room, and how prints actually got handled and stored. I saw some real horror stories, even with very high priced prints by famous photographers or what are now seven-figure per piece painters.

 

[Cholentpot]

So if you did what she's doing, your clients would be hopping mad, yet you acknowledge that you would do the exact same thing she's doing, if only you could. Is that about right?

A fool and their money or something...

I've no reason to doubt that you do.
If your normal print price for a limited edition authenticated print is 1/25 of Cindy Sherman's, then one would suppose you would charge 1/25 of that $10,000.00 fee. $400 seems fair to me.

I'm not sure the cost of the purchased work should equal the cost of a reprint. It's not the print that the inherent cost is tied up in. I mean if it was she wouldn't be offering this service. Back to the duct taped banana. It's the not physical banana and tape, it's the idea. She's charging to replace the banana and tape. And not the cost of the banana and tape, but a substantial increase.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Bob - Cindy is all about parody. I assume that if a comic or clown is especially good, they deserve to be paid well. Just depends on the audience. I just don't happen to be in that particular audience. Vaudeville circus acts aren't my thing, nor stand-up "selfie" comedians.

And yes, anyone who believes any kind of photographic print can just be replaced at will has a very generic mentality indeed. Even when I make an "ordinary" silver gelatin or RA4 print, or Ciba in the past, there was always a best one a little different, or a couple best ones, yet not exactly the same. I wouldn't even want them exactly the same. The majority of my images are represented by two prints at the most. "Limited edition" - hah! By the time I get around to reprinting the same image, perhaps years later, the specific medium might well have changed anyway, and the result will inevitably be a little different. And these are prints by my own hand. That's what counts.

But don't put all your eggs in one basket. Gum prints aren't necessarily permanent either. If you want to see a selection of seriously UV-resistant pigments, look at the surface of Mars. And nowadays, abusive display lighting high in UV is the norm. Even the Sphinx of Egypt, or the Pyramids, would look in terrible condition today to its original craftsmen.

This is the point I made earlier. Not only is the value of the print that was replaced now different, but it affects all other prints of the same picture. So it affects other owners who aren't upgrading their prints. So now you thought you bought a picture for $50,000 that could drop in value to let's say $25,000 becasue others of the series have been replaced by better prints by other owners. Who's going to invest in photos when an artist or their estate (greedy grandchildren) start producing replacements?