On Thu, November 4, 2010 12:29, adoller wrote: > I think you can get around this whole discussion with a signature. No > signature - no value. I like that solution; not least because I don't care beans about the signature, so I can buy the "valueless" prints. But you're absolutely correct for investors, of course. I have to say that I also don't care beans for investors; they're of interest only to the extent that they help the artist make a living. The argument against "limited edition" photo prints as Ansel Adams made it was roughly that the limitation was very artificial (older art print techniques like wood-blocks wear significantly with use; more than a photo negative does). I suspect him of finding the necessary practice of defacing the negative distasteful, too. For digital prints, it's the printer that wears rather than the file, so after you wear out one printer you can just buy another (that's the machines, not people who print). This is an even more extreme case. And it doesn't play well with the usual ways investors play their games. So I suppose people who can get investors to buy their prints will do things to play along (manual signatures being the obvious one), and the other 99.99% of us will ignore the issue. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
