[Baren]: The mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking.

Baren Digest              Friday, 11 December 1998      Volume 05 : Number 371

----------------------------------------------------------------------

('Off-topic' posts deleted ...)

------------------------------

From: "Ray Esposito" <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:21:41 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2280] Re: Down with taxes, up with prints! 

Richard wrote:
> the details may have slipped away ...

Richard...could our memories be thin as a result of clouds of blue
smoke?  :-)>>>

> every editioned print had to be accompanied with a paper 
> stating all the details of the print's production, date,  etc.

    You are in some error here.  There is no rule or law that requires a 
print be accompanied by a paper.  That has grown through convention and 
marketing.  Any artist worth his or her salt will give the collector 
something in writing to begin establishing provence but it is not 
required by anyone.

> it is the common and commercially profitable custom to take 
> famous painter's watercolors or sketches and have limited edition 
> prints made of them. 

    Richard, perhaps this part of my arguement was weak but I stand by 
its essense.  Japan has a history of such reproductions and everyone, 
including me, understands the tradition and history.  I have absolutely 
NO problem with this and actually think it is great.  I also hope no one 
thought I was being critical of Dave because he does not edition and 
considers himself a craftsman.  No one admires him more than I.  I would 
love to own some of the old prints knowing full well they are 
reproductions.  That is the Japan way but does not lessen or deminish 
the value.  I am a subscriber to Dave's poet series.  None of this is a 
problem.

    My problem is in the US where editions and reproductions of editions 
and originals had grown out of control.  May I try to be clear by using 
myself as an example?  If I did an edition of 7, I am telling the public 
that there are 7 original prints on which I, the artist, did the work.  
I do everything including the printing.  But even if I used a master 
printer, I also would be certifying that I worked with the printer each 
step of the way.  I did not give the printer a photo or anything else 
and then walked away.  THAT is an original print.  End of story.  Now, 
if I take one of those prints and have someone take a photo and run off 
500 copies, regardless of quality, sign and number each one, then sell 
them as original prints, I am ripping off the public.

    Again, allow me to be perfectly clear.  If I do this exact same 
thing, but tell the public, "Mr. and Mrs. Collector, these are NOT 
original prints.  This is a work I liked so much, I have had 
reproductions made.  If you cannot afford my original prints, or if the 
monotype or edition is sold out, this is an opportunity to have the 
work.  But PLEASE understand, these are not originals.  By the way Mr. 
and Mrs. Collector, I liked the print so much, I had it put on some 
t-shirts and mugs.  Can i interest you in one of each?"  My point 
is...there is absolutely nothing wrong with reproductions of orignal 
works as long as the public understands they are reproductions.

    As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that reproductions 
should not be numbered and signed since this is misleading giving the 
public the impression it is an original edituion.  But I would not get 
exercised about it as long as the collector was fully aware of what they 
were buying.  I am just a strong supporter of full disclosure.
    Have I been any clearer?

> ... not only the public but also we printmakers need educatin'

    Well said.   But alas....I won't hold my breath.
    Cheers
    Ray

------------------------------

From: "Roger A. Ball" <beckorro@inquo.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:10:55 -0700
Subject: [Baren 2281] editioning still, evidently 

Jean wrote:
>>Roger said it was illegal...

Jean, I won't ever tell anyone that _anything_ is illegal.  The original
quote is Richard's.

As far as editioning is concerned, I wish I didn't have to deal with it
anymore.  Richard's thoughts in Baren 365/2251 are very close to mine.  A
title and a signature looks more honest somehow.  Okay, so say I'm going
for no numbers-- and yet, I _do_ know the actual impression number of each
print in the run, so editioning would be easy.  I wish it didn't sound/look
so stupid to use a single number.  I number each page on the back upper
right corner before I moisten.  This number is impression order and I keep
them in order for the traditional (moisture/shrinkage) reasons.  Later I
end up with X "acceptable" prints and X may start at 30 if it took that
long to get proof.  Then I cull off (X-c) the junk but leave them in order
(and I worry a bunch here if the ratio is too high!)  They could then be
re-numbered into edition(s) on the front or not.  Now while the little
numbers mean everything to me, to the consumer, they's just chicken
scratchins.  They want a number on the front and they could care less that
it took me until the 31st print to get to _their_ 1/100.  Although an
edition of 100 seems plenty open-ended to me right now, just like Richard,
it's that damn bottom number that bothers me!

Any number carries the ability to track the print and say 'Joe has #7.'
Well, when I lost track of some of that kind of info, I grew really
frustrated and it made me feel stupid to have to call up the customer and
ask "for my records."  I guess no number _is_ more appealing now--'Yeah,
Joe has one of that edition.'  It's just way easier to track.

However, don't we all have 3 or so favorites that we really like out of
that edition we just did?  Do most of you use these as Artist Proofs
(A/Ps), or leave them in, or try to bring the level of the whole edition up
to that level, or what?  I think it's really important that if you do A/Ps,
they only be a small fraction of the run (say 5/100 or so) and that somehow
you communicate to the customer that there are only a few--oh, now I can
use that bottom number!

It sucks wading through these issues...thanks to all for your comments.

Cheers!
- -Roger
http://www.inquo.net/~beckorro/woodcut/woodcut.htm

------------------------------

('Off-topic' post deleted ...)

------------------------------

From: "Jeanne N. Chase" <studiojnc@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:49:50 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2283] Re: Baren Digest V5 #369 

Re; Jeans question about printing the same print in totally different colors
on a different paper. Does that not change the print? What if you went into
the print {the wood} and carved it a little differently, in different colors
on different paper?  There is so much in the way of variables concerning
ethics in printmaking that sometimes it boggles the mind. I want to do the
right thing, anyone with concrete answers?
Jeanne

------------------------------

From: "Jeanne N. Chase" <studiojnc@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:00:08 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2284] Re: Down with taxes, up with prints! 

Dear "Fred"
I posted my question regarding prints before I had read your letter. I guess
then that I could change the color of a print if I would continue the
numbering. For example ; if I did 50 prints, then 25 could be in green and
25 could be in blue.  Is that correct?

Also to pose another question.
Someone mentioned not to long ago that He was enclosing a "memo" in his
print exchange as to the type of paper, and an explanation of the print.
Would this be affixed to the back of the print? Would it not have to be an
archival paper?

Jeanne

------------------------------

('Off-topic' posts deleted ...)

------------------------------

From: Julio.Rodriguez@walgreens.com
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:39:40 -0600
Subject: [Baren 2287] re:welcome/editions 

Hi  "FRED", welcome to Baren. I am sure you will enjoy our discussion
group.

On the subject of editioning:

I agree with most of what has been said by Ray, Graham & Richard and on
full disclosure if requested by the buyer. I also think that it should be
up to the artist wether to number the edition or not. If this choice
causes him/her to lose sales.....oh well !

It may all even out. An artist that prints an edition of 30, defaces his
blocks, sells out , refuses to give-in to the reproduction
market and then sees his print become very popular and his prints rise in
value within a short time has certainly lost the potential to earn money
for his creation. If I as an artist sell you a limited edition print for
$1000.00 and two years later you resell that print for $5000.00  and that
person turns around and resells it for $7500.00......am I the artist....
being ripped  off ?  Why should so many others reap so much profit from my
creation and my hard work ?  Am I contibuting to this price "gouging" by
having settled to print a limited edition ? Who is getting the benefit
here...the artist or the collector/buyer? But, don't I want my prints to go
up in value although I can't profit from this ? Certainly my reputation
will increase demand for my work! Maybe my next print will demand more
upstart money ? Right ? The Art world is sometimes as much a roller-coaster
ride as let's say the stock market. Who or what  is IN this year could be
out next.

If I had chosen to not limit the edition, perhaps this print might not
achieve as much popularity and/or demand such prices. But perhaps in the
long run I can sell 100 prints at  $750.00  (instead of 30 at $1000.00)
and  thus reap higher returns for my work.

Having said all that:

However, I would think that many buyers purchase art work for their private
enjoyment (they just like the specific work and/or the artist !) and are
not terribly worried about the print number, it's future value, the edition
details and/or the type of paper used. These buyers are more likely to go
out and spend money on a "reproduction" vs. an original print.
If you do care, are a collector and/or demand only original work, then you
probably know enough about prints, art and dealings  in the art-world  to
know an original from a reproduction. I can't imagine (I know I am going to
get email because of this statement ! ) any artist or galleries purposely
giving buyers mis-information and thereby running the risk of damaging
their reputation.  Deal with reputable people and JUST ASK if you are not
sure !

Thanks....

.JULIO

------------------------------

End of Baren Digest V5 #371
***************************