Eggleston News

<p>Actually, Julie, the point I made was that Zack wasn't making science and art equivalent. Before moving on to your next challenge/accusation, can you acknowledge whether you now understand the difference between making an analogy and suggesting an equivalence. If we go step by step, we're more likely to understand each other. Then we can deal with the difference between saying a photo is badly taken and saying "I don't like it." </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Julie, we know Eggleston is important because he and Stephen Shore made fine art colour photography acceptable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't sell Eggleston that short. I just discovered his work about a couple of weeks ago here at Photo.net. My background is fine art painting, illustration and cartooning.</p>

<p>I don't know who Stephen Shore is, but Eggleston is in a class all to his own as a visual communicator. Everything I've gleamed from his work so far on my own I've had to do a reality check because I feel I'm reading way too much into it, only to have it confirmed by write ups about him from articles I've never read before like the one in your original link that states he's influenced a lot of modern pop culture especially in the movie industry. I didn't need to be told that. Can't explain why no one else gets that from his work.</p>

<p>And this is another aspect of valuation of his work that hasn't been factored in in this discussion. Some of his pieces have an iconic quality (the tricycle) much like Warhol's Campbell Soup prints that increases the value beyond "Limited Editions" influence. How does an appraiser, bean counter and lawyer calculate for that?</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00aFik"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=22127">Mike Dixon</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 10, 2012; 08:49 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Mike, there are three main reasons why old guitars and amps can be reissued without upsetting people.</em><br>

<em>1) Very few people ever buy a new piece of musical equipment as a collection piece. There are only a handful of models each decade that are 'collectible' when new.</em><br>

<em>2) Old amps use tubes that are very hard to find today, and a 50-year old guitar still has 50 year-old wood. This means that it's almost impossible to make a new guitar that is exactly the same as the vintage one. It does happen with amps though.</em><br>

<em>3) This is the big one. Unless a guitar has been owned by someone famous, it's just not valuable enough to matter. Even then, most of them still aren't. A vintage Martin pre-war acoustic might be worth 20K-50K ... this is peanuts compared to the sort of art that Christie's and others are auctioning off. The same goes for cars, etc. Unless it's a rare model, or has racing history, it's not worth enough for these guys to get upset.</em><br>

Zack, your points 1 and 2 don't address why re-issues don't affect the price of originals. As to your third point, most of Eggleston's earlier, limited-edition dye-transfer prints are worth less than 20,000 each--not enough to matter, right? You still haven't addressed why the introductions of new editions over the past several decades hasn't already destroyed the market for collecting art photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1) People buying high-ticket, limited-edition art are typically buying it as an investment, and they expect it to appreciate in value over time. People may buy instruments as an investment, but most people buy them to play. There are many 'collector's edition' guitars out there, but very few of them are <em>proven</em> to appreciate any faster than the rate of inflation. As a rule, musical instruments do not become collectable until they are already old. However, a Gursky is collectable the moment it goes on sale.</p>

<p>2) Part of the reason that a 1957 Fender is worth what it is worth is because it is 55 years old. Like cars or watches, instruments have moving parts that wear down over time, and amps have tubes that burn out eventually, meaning that there are very few entirely original 1957 guitars and amps. Again, this is why very few new instruments are collectable; they aren't usually rare until they're old. Old wood is generally considered to sound better too; meaning that Fender couldn't make a perfect recreation of a 1957 guitar unless they had a block of 55 year old wood to use.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, if you stare at a photo for 55 years, it will look exactly the same as if it sat in a drawer for 55 years.</p>

<p>3) Martin's pre-war acoustics are among the most valuable guitars in the world. Arguably, they are the <em>most valuable</em> that come up for sale regularly. They are also twice as old as an Eggleston print. And they're still only more valuable than some of Eggleston's work if they're entirely original and totally mint. Since Eggleston is far from the most expensive artist to collect, I'd say that shows that the ceiling is much higher for prints.</p>

<p>Eric Clapton's 1957 strat is, I believe, the most expensive guitar in the world. I'm pretty sure the last selling price was a little under a million. Gursky tops that by a wide margin, and with a print that was just made!</p>

<p>As far as proving why the market hasn't been 'destroyed' by new editions over the past "several decades" ... well, because it's not possible to prove anything in either direction. The large fine art market for photography has only existed for "several decades." Besides, doesn't the burden of proof lie with the accuser? ;)</p>

<p>Tim, Stephen Shore is another early colour user. His colour work predated Eggleston's, but his recognition mostly came after. Since we're on music, Eggleston is to colour photography what Nirvana is to grunge music. And for the record I don't like either of them very much, but I feel both deserve the praise that they get for what they did.</p>

 

<i>As far as proving why the market hasn't been 'destroyed' by new editions over the past "several decades" ... well, because it's not possible to prove anything in either direction</i><P>

I would propose that the fact that Gursky's prints can sell for over a million and the fact that Eggleston's new prints are selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars is extremely strong evidence that the market has <b>not</b> been destroyed.

<p>I'm confused Mike. Which side are you on here?</p>

Judging from all of my posts in this thread, I'd say that I'm on the side that believes that, in general, releasing new, different editions doesn't damage the value of earlier, limited editions and that, specifically, Eggleston's new edition of huge prints will not undermine the health of the art photography market.

<p>That's what I thought Mike ... I was confused why you asked for proof :)</p>

<p>Since the market is relatively young, it's impossible to say for sure what the outcome will be. But my guess is that these new prints will cause the value of the old ones to drop quite a bit for a few years, and they will gradually rise until they're about the same price as before.</p>

<p>I think the real determination of value is going to be rarity vs. archivalness. Is archivalness a word? Anyway, that. If there are as many or more inkjets than dye-transfers, it will have much less impact on the value of the old transfers than if there were only a few. On the other hand, any dye-based product (including your colour negatives!) is proven to fade over time. If 20 years from now the dye-transfers aren't holding up well, that may not bode well for their value. But if they are, and the Eggleston Trust is still churning out inkjets, then I have every reason to believe that the original prints will be at or above their current value.</p>

<p>Look at Weston's work: his family is still making prints from his negatives. Meanwhile, <em>original</em> Westons are still extremely valuable. I can't say how much value they lost because of the reprints, but I can tell you that there is a pretty huge gap there.</p>

<p>John H-- good point about the possibility of injunctive relief for Mr. Sobel against the artist. In my post I did not mention injunctions specifically, but the "restraint of trade" point I was making touches on the appropriateness of injunctive relief. I would be surprised if the court gave Sobel an injunction restraining the artist from selling his work because doing so would be a restraint of trade as to the artist. This assumes there is no contract that comes into play on the issue. <br>

As an analogy, those employment contracts with "covenants not to compete" are not looked at very fondly by courts due to the restrictions they place on employees that prevent the employees from earning a living in certain jobs or localities. Injunctive relief is typically denied in those cases unless the contract very clearly and reasonably allows it. </p>