Eggleston News

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>the best lawer... ..."The best" lawers... ... a lawer... ...There are many of those...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's a lawer?</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>John, thanks for pointing it out. I'll try to do better.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Scott Ferris - "Now again, not one person who defends Eggleston's limited edition print position is saying where they draw a line on edition differentiation, very interesting."</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Interesting to Scott, but six PNetters have answered Scott, making it clear where they stand. Where Scott gets that <em>no one </em>has made it clear where they stand on this is a mystery. Here, in their own words:</p>

<p>1.- <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6106234">Craig Dickson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 08, 2012; 12:40 p.m.</p>

<p>To my mind, "limited edition" means "only printing X copies at this time". It does not mean "there will never be another edition." Also, the new prints are neither the same size nor printed by the same method as the old ones.</p>

<p>2.- <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570">Luis G</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 08, 2012; 08:38 p.m.</p>

<p>Selling editions by size is nothing new or unusual. I expect the Eggleston Trust to win this one.</p>

<p>3.- <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=153336">Brad -</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 08, 2012; 08:59 p.m.</p>

<p>With respect to editioning, I don't think some people or Johnson understands how it works. An edition is limited to a particular physical size and number, and in this case medium.</p>

<p>and..." Editioning in multiple sizes has been practiced for decades. People know how it works. "</p>

<p>4.- <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 08, 2012; 10:23 p.m.</p>

 

<p><em><br /></em><br>

Eggleston is not trying to change the way limited editions work in the art market--he's following practices that have been accepted for decades. Somehow, the art market for photography has survived . . .</p>

<p>5.- <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5657447">Zack Zoll</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 08, 2012; 11:36 p.m.<br>

Judging by the amount of comments about 'No one says he can't make more of a limited edition', I'm guessing that a lot of people here don't realize how a limited edition run works.<br>

and...<br>

In addition to being a different size, these new prints are different chemicals. That's pretty cut-and-dry, in my mind. Since inkjet prints didn't exist at the time, and since all current tests of pigment prints show them to be more archival than dye-transfer, Eggleston can play the George Lucas card, and say that's what he wanted to do all along.</p>

<p>6.- <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</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="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 09, 2012; 11:57 a.m.</p>

<p>Eggleston is hardly the first person to do this with photographic prints. </p>

 

[craigd]

<p>It doesn't matter where the "line on edition differentiation" is drawn. I'm not inclined to nail it down to specific numbers. I'm quite certain that the criteria in this case are more than sufficient -- the new prints are 8x the size of the old ones, the printing process is different, and the two editions are separated in time by 40+ years. I don't feel a need to decide whether it would be "different enough" if the size difference were smaller, or the process more similar, or the time difference shorter, because that's not relevant to this case.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Luis,</p>

<p>Not one of those six you quote has answered the question of is 1" different enough in their eyes, or is dye inkjet and pigment inkjet different enough.</p>

<p>I have already pointed out that just because it is done, does not necessarily make it right, but even if you do believe it is right then when does it become wrong? At what point is your edition limited?</p>

<p>Are you saying that a limited print of 20 dye transfer 20"x30" images is limited only by the fact that the artist just happened to get 20 made at one time and if they want more of the same they will print them? That is a farcical position, there is zero point in any numbers in that situation. I well understand those that feel a 60" print is very different to a 20" print, but what is their feeling about a 25" print to a 20" limited edition? That is my question and thee one nobody seems willing to answer.</p>

[starvy]

<p>I wonder if the lawsuit is likely to elevate the eventual value of his work?</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>There doesn't seem to be a solid definition of "Limited Edition" so the only thing you have is the honor system and possible damage to the reputation of the artist if they start making more copies. Different people will have different ideas as to what makes up a "new" edition. I am curious to see how this plays out. I can imagine that people could start writing contracts or affidavits defining the "limited edition" that applies to the photos.</p>

<p>The new editions can only hurt the value of the current photos, and you clearly cannot trust that these will be the last copies. Eggleston and co. has shown that to be unwise.</p>

<p>Fine art photography does have one real issue with limited editions in the digital age. Exact copies of a work can be produced long after the artist has died. Ansel Adams was heavily involved in the dodging and burning process for his prints in the darkroom. New prints can be made from the negatives, but they won't be "Ansel Adams" prints. Once the final image is digital, it is fixed and the artist need not add anything. You don't just have to worry about the artist printing more copies on a whim, you have to worry about the heirs or whoever buys the rights doing so. </p>

<p>In short, I don't plan on investing in fine art photographs on the hope that they will increase in value over time. </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Scott, part of the reason that no one has answered your question is that the answer is irrelevant to the discussion. How similar the two are is immaterial to the legality discussion. They are not THE SAME, which means it is, by definition, not more of the same edition. It doesn't matter how different they are - just that they are different.</p>

<p>Also, not having a written contract (or maybe he did!) isn't revelant, since the inkjet print didn't exist at the time. Back then, ALL small-run exhibition/art/etc. photographic prints were made by hand on an enlarger; whether there is a contract doesn't matter, because said contract would not address new mediums.</p>

<p>The question is not "Should Eggleston be allowed to make more prints?" The question is, "Should Eggleston be allowed to use new technology to reprint 'finished' work?" My use of George Lucas as an analogy was not coincidence. Eggleston is not altering his images, but he is digitally remastering them.</p>

<p>Lastly - and I know this is rude, but there's no polite way to say it - those of you that say he's overrated clearly do not understand art or art history at all. Yes, your kid could do it. But that's only because your kid grew up with 40 years of Eggleston-infuenced photography. Eggleston, Shore, and a few others were the first 'artists' to make colour photography acceptable.</p>

<p>Your kid could paint a Picasso. But was your kid the first painter to make cubism an accepted art form? No, they were not. Your kid probably HAS painted a Pollack. But your kid wasn't the one that caused outrage in the art world by showing it in a gallery, and was definitely not one of the first to do so.</p>

<p>Your teenager could write Catcher in the Rye too. But they didn't. Need I continue?</p>

<p>Every time someone says, "I could have done that first," there should be half a dozen people that remind him, "Yeah, but you didn't."</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Not one of those six you quote has answered the question of is 1" different enough in their eyes, or

is dye inkjet and pigment inkjet different enough.

 

OK, I will. The answer is that's your decision (and that of your gallery, if represented). The market

will speak to whether you made a good decision. The are no rules; kind of like photography...

[scott_ferris]

<blockquote>

<p>"It doesn't matter where the "line on edition differentiation" is drawn."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is entirely the point of the thread, well it is the only point that the pro Eggleston camp have put up to defend his actions, other than<em> "everybody else does it",</em> even though they don't.</p>

<p>As I have said repeatedly, this case might be comparatively clear cut for many, my question is, when isn't it clear cut, because if this gets through unchallenged that is the next issue we will have, how different is different enough.</p>

<p>Stephen,</p>

<p>Excellent points and very well made, investors/patrons will shy away from photographic fine art due to it's inherent repeatability and the fact that there doesn't seem to be a clear cut and legally enforceable definition of photo "limited editions".</p>

<p>All I was trying to do is find out what different peoples ideas of what constitutes a separate edition. My opinion is very clear cut and understandable by all, everybody supporting Eggleston's position is undefined at best and none of them will commit to an alternative, that is not a recipe for investor confidence and can't do anything but impact the comparatively fragile fine art photography market negatively.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> My opinion is very clear cut and understandable by all, everybody supporting Eggleston's position is

undefined at best

 

I suspect my opinion is understandable by (most) all. It's hardly undefined. That's how editioning works...

[scott_ferris]

<p>Zack,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Lastly - and I know this is rude, but there's no polite way to say it - those of you that say he's overrated clearly do not understand art or art history at all. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It isn't rude, it is very presumptuous, not that that upsets me either. But just because there has now been enough time for the market/art world to accept Egglston's work does not mean that his critics, and there have been very many over the years, were wrong, or unjustified, or undereducated, or unable to understand art or the history of art. Indeed the 1976 MOMA showing of the Untitled/Tricycle/Memphis, 1970, was universally panned, many citing the exhibition as the worst ever. That I still hold that opinion might make me a troglodyte, but not an uncomprehending or uneducated one.</p>

<p>There were many people using images like Eggleston, but mostly in B&W, his use of colour was considered pivotal. I could make counter claims for all the artists that achieved fame that I don't rate at all, for instance it isn't difficult to find out why Pollock did so well, and it had very little to do with his application of paint to a canvas.</p>

<p>But that is taking us far off course, your opinion of not the same differs from mine, hopefully the courts will sort it all out definitively.</p>

<p>Brad,</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>The answer is that's your decision..............The are no rules; kind of like photography...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that is a recipe for a zero level of interest from patrons and an open checkbook to a bunch of lawyers.</p>

 

 

 

[Brad_]

>>> Excellent points and very well made, investors/patrons will shy away from photographic fine art due to it's

inherent repeatability and the fact that there doesn't seem to be a clear cut and legally enforceable definition of

photo "limited editions".

 

>>> And that is a recipe for a zero level of interest from patrons and an open checkbook to a bunch of lawyers.

 

 

Scott, are you a fine-art photograph collector who buys limited edition prints? If yes, you know how the system

works. If no, why are you so concerned about saving collectors who despite their level of knowledge, seem to

be doing just fine? This isn't new...

[mike dixon]

<i>Excellent points and very well made, investors/patrons will shy away from photographic fine art due to it's inherent repeatability and the fact that there doesn't seem to be a clear cut and legally enforceable definition of photo "limited editions".</i><P>

 

If Eggleston was now releasing another set of dye-transfer prints that were same size as his limited edition from decades ago, you might have a point about no "clear cut and legally enforceable definition." But he's not. He's releasing a very-different edition of much larger prints made through an entirely-different process. Photographers have followed this practice for decades, and it hasn't destroyed the value of limited editions. In this case, "everybody's doing it" is a reasonable counter to your claim that what Eggleston is doing will undermine the value of limited editions--if the release of different editions destroyed the value of earlier, limited editions, the bottom would have fallen out of the art photography market long ago.

[yog_sothoth]

<p>Artists certainly have the right to tweak their photos and take advantage of modern methods. I am sure he can improve many of the images in photoshop, and more power to him. </p>

<p>It sounds a lot like he is releasing larger, digitally remastered versions of the old photos that will make the originals obsolete. The new ones are not just different, they are almost certain to be better. I can see why holders of the smaller, unremastered, and older versions would be upset if the only reason they bought the photos was as investments. The new versions won't change the appearance old versions, but they will affect their value. People who buy the photos to actually look at them won't care much, I imagine. </p>

<p> An art form that can be reproduced ad infinitum is powerful as a way to express yourself to a large number of people, but is not amazingly collectible IMHO. The new remastered digital files of the scanned negatives will always be available for an infinite number of limited edition prints. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> It sounds a lot like he is releasing larger, digitally remastered versions of the old photos that will

make the originals obsolete. The new ones are not just different, they are almost certain to be better.

 

Obsolete? Are you kidding? And the new prints better? Better in what way? Because they are larger? One could argue that's already reflected in the price

difference; hardly making the original dye transfer prints obsolete. Their value is based on their uniqueness - both in the process and when they were created. On the contrary, I predict their value

will increase as a result.

 

Also, I'd argue that, as you put it, a remastered and improved print is not "better." For example, I would

much rather have one of Robert Frank's original normal-sized prints from his Americans series, printed in the 1950s, and not (by today's standards) very sharp

or contrasty, than a "remastered" version that's not only technically "better," but super-sized at five feet

on the long dimension.

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00aFbA"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=657840">Scott Ferris</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 09, 2012; 07:22 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"It doesn't matter where the "line on edition differentiation" is drawn."</em><br>

That is entirely the point of the thread, well it is the only point that the pro Eggleston camp have put up to defend his actions, other than<em> "everybody else does it",</em> even though they don't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's funny that you should say that, because I started the thread. The <em>original</em> point of the thread was that I was a little miffed that, while we have a dozen news posts of new gear a week, there was not a single post of what may prove to be an important event that changes how fine art photographers and prints are viewed and collected in our lifetime.</p>

<p>You injected your own meaning into the conversation, and took that to be the "real" meaning. You have assumed that we are all on the same page as you (and why wouldn't we be?!), and gone so far as to essentially argue with me about what I meant when I posted the topic.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00aFbI"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=657840">Scott Ferris</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 09, 2012; 07:39 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Zack,<br>

<em>Lastly - and I know this is rude, but there's no polite way to say it - those of you that say he's overrated clearly do not understand art or art history at all.</em><br>

It isn't rude, it is very presumptuous, not that that upsets me either. But just because there has now been enough time for the market/art world to accept Egglston's work does not mean that his critics, and there have been very many over the years, were wrong, or unjustified, or undereducated, or unable to understand art or the history of art. Indeed the 1976 MOMA showing of the Untitled/Tricycle/Memphis, 1970, was universally panned, many citing the exhibition as the worst ever. That I still hold that opinion might make me a troglodyte, but not an uncomprehending or uneducated one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry Scott, but your attempt at a rebuttal just further illustrates my point that you don't understand it. You <em>can't</em> discuss art history in the present, because it hasn't become <em>history</em> yet. You're practically telling me that it's fair to say that Galileo was a nutjob, because <em>at the time</em>, everyone said so. This is not the way history works. You can say it's 'time passed to appreciate the work,' but in reality it is 'time passed for it to have its effect on the world.'</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00aFcq"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=556573">Stephen Cumblidge</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 09, 2012; 09:36 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It sounds a lot like he is releasing larger, digitally remastered versions of the old photos that will make the originals obsolete. The new ones are not just different, they are almost certain to be better.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

<p>That's debatable. Dye transfer prints are said to have much better tonal range than any other printing technology ever used, including modern inkjet printers. However, pigmented inket prints are much more archival. It's more 'modern' than better.</p>

<p>Scott, I've ragged on you a whole bunch now, so let me be fair and actually address your argument.</p>

<p>In order to qualify as a 'separate edition', based on the dictionary-type definition, it has to not be the exact same. Different size, or materials can do this. Arguably if they were hand-printed by two different people or on two printers (one dye and one pigment) they might be different, but that could be a legal battle. If they are all made the same way, but over a span of years, it is still the same edition. Books, which are generally printed in massive batches, are the only things I'm aware of that can be exactly the same, but two different editions. This is often because they were printed with metal type, and the metal would dull after many printings and require new type blocks be cut. Technically, the second edition is the exact same, except that it is made with different type. That's not the case today; I think they keep the rule in place just for consistency.</p>

<p>Based on the 'spirit' of the word, I would say that either the materials used to produce them be radically different - analog dye vs. digital pigment, vinyl vs. CD, high-quality cotton paper vs. cheap pulp - or the image/music/whatever needs to be altered so as to have a different meaning or appearance. Making colour images monochrome, pasting them together, etc.</p>

 

[mike dixon]

It's odd that reissues of classic guitars and amps (and those are relatively accurate copies of the originals, not very different editions) don't destroy the collector value of the originals, and new editions of books don't destroy the value of early editions, and, in the past, new editions of photographs haven't destroyed the value of early limited editions, but now, for some reason that no one has clearly explained, the release of a new edition of Eggleston prints is going to not only destroy the value of an early limited edition but also undermine the entire art photography collectors market.

[Julie H]

<p>Zack Zoll, you wrote: "You're practically telling me that it's fair to say that Galileo was a nutjob, because <em>at the time</em>, everyone said so."</p>

<p>Analogizing the history of art to the history of science is not exactly convincing. Or are you arguing that science and art are equivalent?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Or are you arguing that science and art are equivalent?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course not. He's making an analogy about people's reactions <em>in time</em> to a particular man's work and how that can change.</p>

<p>People often respond badly to artists in their own times because there are not yet the aesthetic sensibilities and context to allow otherwise. Scientists and artists are often ahead of their times. They are often both discoverers. They are often leading awareness rather than reflecting it and there is often resistance to that. That doesn't, except in the most facile and hyperbolic world, make science and art equivalent. An analogy often simply isolates SOME similar characteristics.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>How do Zack Zoll and Fred* know that they is not the "nutjob(s)" in this *(the Eggleston) case? Are you speaking to me from "ahead of [your] time"?</p>

<p>[* and me -- I like Eggleston's work -- but I neither make nor demand any similar claim for others]</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Thanks Fred :)</p>

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

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

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>And of course, we only see them as that valuable <em>now</em>, after we have some context of the history. Early 1900s Bugattis sell in the millions, but only because they were winning cars. If you bought one new, and the team never won, they'd be worth much less today.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Julie, we know Eggleston is important because he and Stephen Shore made fine art colour photography acceptable. That may change; there might be a backlash, and we may spend the next 100 years shooting monochromes. In which case, Eggleston will be less important - like KISS ushering in 80s hair metal. But based on where things are right now, he's very important.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, who was talking about liking Eggleston's work? Who was making demands on tastes? What are you talking about?</p>

[mike dixon]

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.