Mark,
Now, speaking objectively, are you disagreeing with my diagnosis that especially in the light of unlimited repeatability of excellent prints created with digital media, the phenomenon you remarked on is being driven by an effort to enforce scarcity in order to sustain high value. Or am I being too cynical?
Mark
Mark, I can’t comment about whether you are being cynical or not, that’s up to you. Speaking objectively, sir, I really think on the local level, regarding institutions, it has more to do with perceptions of controlling quality, equating signed, numbered editions as the hallmark of fine art and a badge of quality, for the purpose of providing some sort of “standard of accountability” in order to participate within the framework of institutions seeking to elevate their standards (which they attempt to to by controlling perceptions). Artists and galleries may employee this sales technique to attempt to create a commonly held perception that editions signify greater value, therefore if signed and numbered, the prints must be better, if they are better, they are more valuable.
When institutions or arts organizations graduate and become accredited as museums, there may be guidelines in place that stipulate photographers adhere to these standards which ultimately are put in place by professionals, people, actually, who believe honestly that signed, numbered, editions carry more weight, and even “museum heft” than “un-pedigreed” prints. It is really about perception, which if the print appears bonified, the institution carries more credibility. Even if the concept is a carryover from a former era, which has no longer any substance in relation to the beginnings of its history.
So the answer is yes and no, as far as I can fathom. This system can be taken advantage of, but there are those who believe in it and ascribe wholeheartedly to it. I don’t worry about it personally, because as I said, I have enough sway to avoid the issue mostly, but I really just don’t like seeing regulation creep. And I don’t like presumptions based on facts not in evidence. Just because it’s the way things have been done in the past a certain way doesn’t mean they always have to continue that way.
Just as Dave Chew remarked, he is denied access to certain events because he is not comfortable doing a numbered edition at this point. This is a significantly honest response to an evergrowing issue, and I personally just don’t like the way arts organizations are now dictating terms to artists because of all the issues I raised previously. So no, money doesn’t always play into this issue. For many, there is only what is perceived as a “right way” of conducting business. Even if misguided, outdated, what-have-you. And for others, there is no choice because sometime in the past rules were set in place to assert control and adherence to standards.
I feel bad for photographers starting out, or even in the case of David Chew who is most accomplished, yet would be forced to accept the “play by our rules or you can’t participate” situation. What I object to most is how folks just assume it is better, and if it is better, then it must be more valuable.
I stand with all artists, all photographers who want to make their own decisions about how they will present their work. I am here to say that it is possible to do so. Of course, anyone can manipulate the system, play games, like putting 1/1 on a canvas print, make up arbitrary situations and numbers for editions in order to be able to participate, but, you know, I just don’t like it. Like Steiglitz and Adams we all start out as innocents, until, unlike them, we may be forced to comply to survive.
Thank you Mark -