Giclee Editioning

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Nazarko" <ednaz@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Giclee vs other names

-- snip --

> And on series numbering - this is a discussion that I've watched as it
> raged in many other forums. The whole notion of edition numbering smells
> of dishonesty in photographic printing and inkjet - most editions are
> many, many times larger than will ever be printed. I guess that's what I
> find dishonest.
>

I don't see how this poses any notion of dishonesty, unless there's abuse in
using the system. A kind of self canceling statement . . . in the tradition
of etching and traditional print making; and to follow with regard to making
prints off a disk this should be useful to show the numbers run at that time
and which edition those prints were run. This is certainly abused, and
teachers pass off the idea as subjective. The standard would be, in my
photographic printing, useful to show the number of prints I made that day
and which one consecutively I printed. for example in the lower left of the
print, off the image: 5/5 or the fifth print in a series of five. When I
make that rpint again, I mark the print 4/6.2 as an example of the forth
print of six and decimal for the following to show which edition of [six]
prints. Joe Rosenthal did this with his Flag Raising pictures, and in the
case of speical single prints, well the receipient had their own provenance.
I had a rare 16X20 of that print, which was made for the Marine Regiment
Anniversary celebration. History will tell of the numbers available and
rareity, etc. etc.

It seems to me that numbering is the honest thing to do.

The consenus of gallery owners is to look at Gilcee prints as glorified
posters. Anything you can do as an artist to mark the paper and show that
each print received special attention that makes it different from the one
proceeding or the ones to follow would enhanse the intrinsic value . . . I
would think. Additionally, what you put on the art work that shows the
materials are above standard would add to the appreciation. It's up to the
artist.

Records show Edward Weston made 29 reprints of some of his well recognized
prints. 29 in his whole lifetime. The series printed by his sons Brett and
later more by Cole were far more and in fact supported the family quite well
after EW died. Those reprints had special markings. How dishonest can that
be? I don't think so.

Steve Shapiro
_______________________________________________
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
pinhole-discussion mailing list
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html
Received on Wed Dec 14 13:19:00 2005