Thank you to all who contributed to the conversation. I appreciate hearing
your thoughts.
Marilyn
****
Have you ever wished you could tell yours childhood self a thing or two
about growing up?
Would the knowledge you know now have saved you from learning things the
hard way?
It's Tough Growing Up: Children's Stories of Courage
Marilyn Dalrymple and Joan Foor
www.itstoughgrowingup.com
-----Original Message-----
From: David Dyer-Bennet
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:02 PM
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: RE: Value of digital prints in the future
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
