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

[DREW WILEY]

Arthur - yep. It all depends on the repute on the dealer. I really locked horns with a particular gallery once. They specialized in rare irreplaceable very early photos. The owner contacted me for technical advice. He had just remodeled his storage area with particle board shelving, and wanted to know how to best seal it. I told him he it was a terrible material around photographic prints (it outgases formaldehyde), and that he should replace it as soon as possible with ventilated stainless steel or chrome wire racks. He cussed me out and turned for advice to someone in the British Museum who specializes in marble sculpture restoration, who recommended a particular marble sealant which happens to be high in sulphur - even worse!

A number of people made purchases from him adding up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The pieces looked good, then when they opened back up their portfolio boxes a few months later, there was no apparent image at all ! Well, that did lead to a series of nasty lawsuits. But it couldn't be classified as fraud, because that was never the intent. It was due to sheer incompetence on the part of this particular dealer and an otherwise highly respected antiquities conservator who knew nothing about photographs per se. And of course, the dealer lost all these lawsuits, and had to refund all the money plus legal expenses.

Art fraud per se is so bad in particular "tourist trap" gallery towns that specialized FBI agents have been stationed there. But only certain states have real teeth when it comes to defining what fraud means. Ignorant or misleading claims about image permanence rarely factors into that, since that kind of issue is almost ubiquitous. More often it's about mass-produced fare being marketed as if original. In one case, a famous seascape painter in France turned out to be an assembly line in Mexico.
NY and CA laws forbid mass-produced photolithographs being sold as real lithographs, although it still happens. "Collectible"
fancy posters which cost $15 wholesale get sold to naive "investors" for four of six thousand dollars apiece, and by the thousands. That's the kind of thing which usually attracts fraud charges. Now even shady galleries are more careful to avoid referring to "investment value", although they have roundabout ways of distinctly implying it.

 

[koraks]

So you pay your money and take your chances? I do think "reasonable expectations" has a place in law.

No doubt, but the question is what constitutes 'reasonable'. If you're talking about C-prints made on the papers available a few decades ago that all faded due to inherent characteristics of the material, I wonder how much of a case you have. It's a bit like someone selling you a sand sculpture on the beach to "enjoy for eternity".

 

[Arthurwg]

No doubt, but the question is what constitutes 'reasonable'. If you're talking about C-prints made on the papers available a few decades ago that all faded due to inherent characteristics of the material, I wonder how much of a case you have. It's a bit like someone selling you a sand sculpture on the beach to "enjoy for eternity".

Yes, that's why it could and should be tested in court.

 

[MattKing]

I would be absolutely amazed if Cindy Sherman didn't research the consequences of this offer extensively before making it.
Including market research, and legal research.
And I would be equally amazed if a court of law would hold her responsible for lack of longevity knowledge if, when the prints were originally sold, that knowledge was neither common or even accessible.
I'm equally sure that there were no extra-ordinary express representations about longevity when the prints were originally sold, unless they were of the nature of "processed and handled according to current standards" type of representations.

 

[Mike Lopez]

I would be absolutely amazed if Cindy Sherman didn't research the consequences of this offer extensively before making it.
Including market research, and legal research.
And I would be equally amazed if a court of law would hold her responsible for lack of longevity knowledge if, when the prints were originally sold, that knowledge was neither common or even accessible.
I'm equally sure that there were no extra-ordinary express representations about longevity when the prints were originally sold, unless they were of the nature of "processed and handled according to current standards" type of representations.

I know of one photographer who offers a lifetime warranty with her prints. The only caveat is that it applies to the photographer's lifetime, and not the buyer's. But those prints are archivally produced silver chloride contact prints.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Yes, that's why it could and should be tested in court.

Maybe you could procure one of her originals and then take her to court. Give her a piece of your mind!

 

[koraks]

I know of one photographer who offers a lifetime warranty with her prints.

I'd always be happy to give that kind of warranty. Of the print's lifetime, that is. Print broken? Warranty expired!

 

[MattKing]

I know of one photographer who offers a lifetime warranty with her prints. The only caveat is that it applies to the photographer's lifetime, and not the buyer's. But those prints are archivally produced silver chloride contact prints.

Which is fine - because there is excellent longevity data around, based on past history, rather than optimistic projection.
When Cindy Sherman's early colour work was being sold, the longevity data was known as well - that C prints were not nearly that long lived.
So I repeat my observation:
I'm equally sure that there were no extra-ordinary express representations about longevity when the prints were originally sold, unless they were of the nature of "processed and handled according to current standards" type of representations.
Something like a "ten year" warranty would not have been extra-ordinary. Perhaps even a "twenty year" warranty might have been offered.

 

[Arthurwg]

Maybe you could procure one of her originals and then take her to court. Give her a piece of your mind!

I didn't say I thought the owner/buyer would win.

 

[Arthurwg]

Which is fine - because there is excellent longevity data around, based on past history, rather than optimistic projection.
When Cindy Sherman's early colour work was being sold, the longevity data was known as well - that C prints were not nearly that long lived.

I guess that's a good reason not to invest in C prints. I believe that dye-transfer prints, as used by William Eggleston and others, have a longer lifespan.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Which is fine - because there is excellent longevity data around, based on past history, rather than optimistic projection.
When Cindy Sherman's early colour work was being sold, the longevity data was known as well - that C prints were not nearly that long lived.
So I repeat my observation:
I'm equally sure that there were no extra-ordinary express representations about longevity when the prints were originally sold, unless they were of the nature of "processed and handled according to current standards" type of representations.
Something like a "ten year" warranty would not have been extra-ordinary. Perhaps even a "twenty year" warranty might have been offered.

There's a certain degree of levity in the terms of her warranty. Perhaps it doesn't translate well on a message board. I think @koraks picked up on it.

 

[MattKing]

There's a certain degree of levity in the terms of her warranty. Perhaps it doesn't translate well on a message board. I think @koraks picked up on it.

Oh I picked up on the levity.
I thought it a perfect warranty for all the 70 year old plus members here!

 

[DREW WILEY]

The great majority of "lifetime warranties" even on hard manufactured items are so full of worm holes and fine print as to be almost meaningless. "We'll replace it for free" ... if exactly the same model number is still in manufacture at the time (which they frequently change on purpose) ... if the same marketing entity still represents it ... if you return it in person with the original receipt to our warranty office in Baghdad during wartime conditions... etc.

Arthur - even dye transfer prints fade rather quickly when exposed to UV or harsh atmospheric pollutants. What does direct sunlight do to anything dyed? Chromogenic prints have dramatically improved in that respect in recent decades (Fuji products); but it's still an issue. I have hundreds of Cibachrome prints that look like they were made yesterday; but hot gallery halogen "projector" lamps, popular during that era, could fade them in a matter of months. Inkjet inks have dye components, and the various colorants involved fade at unequal rates, making color shifts inevitable.

The whole point, is that if something is valuable, you protect it from deleterious conditions. But some people just don't care. They buy a $50 K dress for sake of a big party, and wear it only once. They buy a 50K sofa, and when it starts to fade, or they just get tired of it, they toss it out, along with the 50K piece of artwork hung above it. I've known of people who built dream homes costing tens of millions, and then got tired of them in a few years and just walked away, and built something bigger.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I imagine archivists in museums, government, etc scan most photos and film they have received. Digital storage doesn't fade.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Digital storage isn't the same thing at all, and it's certainly not permanent. The technology is progressing so fast that it makes itself obsolete over and over again at a rapid pace. At least if we find a box of old prints in an attic, we might be able to visually assess what is there intuitively, and decide if it's worth keeping or not. With tapes or discs, why bother? - are CD's used for anything today other than skeet shooting?

Often by the time something of interest reaches a museum, it already has issues. Conservators can spend months or even decades trying to restore a valuable paintings. How many photo prints are really worth that fuss unless they contain significant historical content? Certain highly expensive works today might get sneered at by another generation. A photoshopped composite of the Marlboro Man riding away on a horse?

 

[koraks]

I imagine archivists in museums, government, etc scan most photos and film they have received.

They most definitely do. Partly for research purposes, but also as a 'just in case' backup. While it's evidently not the same as the original artwork, at least the content as such isn't necessarily gone if the original is lost.

 

[MattKing]

I imagine archivists in museums, government, etc scan most photos and film they have received. Digital storage doesn't fade.

The scans do greatly increase the ability for institutions to share their collections - if they can afford the resources necessary to do the scanning, with the associated indexing, cataloguing, and creation and maintenance of a public access portal. None of that comes cheap!
And digital storage is expensive to maintain. That is why Eastman Kodak still offers film materials to the archiving marketplace.

 

[Don_ih]

Digital storage doesn't fade.

It requires maintenance, which is routine copying to new storage media and possibly converting to a new file format.

Similar to Cindy Sherman offering to produce new prints to replace faded ones.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It all depends. Most museums have quite limited budgets, and can barely survive. Unless major pieces are involved, the role of digital or even film copying is that of establishing an inventory, potentially useful to historians or for book reproductions, for example. It's not like Hollywood with its big budgets saving full feature old flicks on newer real film, as well as digitally (which might be necessary anyway for sake of restoration techniques).

I've known of significant historical collections deliberately destroyed because certain museums simply couldn't afford to either freezer store, copy, print, or fire insure themselves relative to old risky nitrate negatives.

There were serious problems when microfilm was replaced by digital methods for archiving text records in certain important libraries. Files were corrupted or outright failed, or couldn't keep up with the repetitive software changes. It's never wise to put all your eggs in one basket. We have the cuneiform records of ancient Mesopotamians still intact due to being on clay tablets - now that's "archival"; but only a handful of people can read them.

With this Cindy heyday stuff, you might very well have the problem of both the original color neg and representative color prints all being somewhat faded, and therefore requiring corrective digital enhancements post-scan. Therefore, either Cindy herself would have to say at what point a redo turns out looking "right", or perhaps there is a hermetically sealed reference C-print in cold storage somewhere. Printmakers of that era simply took it for granted that experiencing their work on chromogenic prints was a limited opportunity; they expected them to fade.

Even Eliot Porter stated up front that only his black and white color separation negatives were "permanent"; the dye transfer prints themselves would inevitably fade. A 20 year display life was considered exceptional back then. Cibachrome changed that equation, but was still dependent on avoiding UV. Most commercial galleries seemed to be oblivious to the whole question, or downright evasive. Even true pigment processes like color carbro weren't immune from issues like emulsion blistering. My own brother placed his own best dye transfer print in a "professional" presentation album containing vinyl sleeves, which ruined it in less than a decade.

And look at the incredible effort and expense restoring DaVinci's Last Supper mural because he experimented with some new painting tweak without prior testing. Picasso and Matisse made collages out of ordinary cheap colored cardboard which have faded and embrittled, yet are considered priceless. Rothko used fugitive pigments. Great watercolorists sometimes painted on papers which discolored over time, or were backed by ordinary cardboard. Some of own aunt's watercolors were stored in Kraft paper, ruining what would have otherwise been prized museum pieces; what has survived is mostly her fresco murals. All of this "archival" thinking is a relative new thing, which photographers, artists, and galleries didn't even think about much prior to the latter portion of the 20th C.

 

[Cholentpot]

I imagine archivists in museums, government, etc scan most photos and film they have received. Digital storage doesn't fade.

Digital is always one link/step from being gone forever. Forget that password? Disk drive goes down? Cloud service you use disappears? Format is no longer supported? Gone.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The US Library of Congress has a huge selection of photos many digitized and available on the web. Here's the link for Ansel Adams.

Search Results: "ansel adams" - Prints & Photographs Online Catalog (Library of Congress)

The Prints and Photographs Online Catalog (PPOC) contains catalog records and digital images representing a rich cross-section of still pictures held by the Prints & Photographs Division and, in some cases, other units of the...

www.loc.gov

 

[TJones]

Digital is always one link/step from being gone forever. Forget that password? Disk drive goes down? Cloud service you use disappears? Format is no longer supported? Gone.

How many stories about negatives being discarded, misplaced, lost in a fire, etc. before you realize that film is no more safe, and possibly less so because there’s no way to make identical copies and store them separately?

 

[DREW WILEY]

For decades, the Library of Congress duplicated on film what were considered important historical images. People could even order duplicate negs from them. Digital cataloging is now partially parallel option, but not really a replacement. Their highest priority lies with preserving the originals.

 

[Milpool]

It all depends. Most museums have quite limited budgets, and can barely survive. Unless major pieces are involved, the role of digital or even film copying is that of establishing an inventory, potentially useful to historians or for book reproductions, for example. It's not like Hollywood with its big budgets saving full feature old flicks on newer real film, as well as digitally (which might be necessary anyway for sake of restoration techniques).

I've known of significant historical collections deliberately destroyed because certain museums simply couldn't afford to either freezer store, copy, print, or fire insure themselves relative to old risky nitrate negatives.

There were serious problems when microfilm was replaced by digital methods for archiving text records in certain important libraries. Files were corrupted or outright failed, or couldn't keep up with the repetitive software changes. It's never wise to put all your eggs in one basket. We have the cuneiform records of ancient Mesopotamians still intact due to being on clay tablets - now that's "archival"; but only a handful of people can read them.

With this Cindy heyday stuff, you might very well have the problem of both the original color neg and representative color prints all being somewhat faded, and therefore requiring corrective digital enhancements post-scan. Therefore, either Cindy herself would have to say at what point a redo turns out looking "right", or perhaps there is a hermetically sealed reference C-print in cold storage somewhere. Printmakers of that era simply took it for granted that experiencing their work on chromogenic prints was a limited opportunity; they expected them to fade.

Even Eliot Porter stated up front that only his black and white color separation negatives were "permanent"; the dye transfer prints themselves would inevitably fade. A 20 year display life was considered exceptional back then. Cibachrome changed that equation, but was still dependent on avoiding UV. Most commercial galleries seemed to be oblivious to the whole question, or downright evasive. Even true pigment processes like color carbro weren't immune from issues like emulsion blistering. My own brother placed his own best dye transfer print in a "professional" presentation album containing vinyl sleeves, which ruined it in less than a decade.

And look at the incredible effort and expense restoring DaVinci's Last Supper mural because he experimented with some new painting tweak without prior testing. Picasso and Matisse made collages out of ordinary cheap colored cardboard which have faded and embrittled, yet are considered priceless. Rothko used fugitive pigments. Great watercolorists sometimes painted on papers which discolored over time, or were backed by ordinary cardboard. Some of own aunt's watercolors were stored in Kraft paper, ruining what would have otherwise been prized museum pieces; what has survived is mostly her fresco murals. All of this "archival" thinking is a relative new thing, which photographers, artists, and galleries didn't even think about much prior to the latter portion of the 20th C.

True. Archival is also very much a photography thing, in particular a photographer’s thing.

 

[Cholentpot]

How many stories about negatives being discarded, misplaced, lost in a fire, etc. before you realize that film is no more safe, and possibly less so because there’s no way to make identical copies and store them separately?

Many stories. However film is still tangible. Digital backup isn't an end all. If I have the negatives in my possession I can check up on them once in a while. They're not going anywhere barring a physical accident. Digital has a habit of just disappearing.

Currently I can't easily access my backed up files. My UPS died and I'm waiting on a replacement battery. I can plug in all my backup drives but what happened if the UPS fried them? I won't know until I boot them up again. Meanwhile my negatives are sitting on a shelf in a binder.