The Value of Reproduction

-->

This week, a fantastic exchange occurred on the Flak Photo Network page on Facebook.  The conversation that took place had me thinking quite a bit about the mission of window, which led me to write up a pretty lengthy response to the original prompt, written by Tad Barney, which is reprinted below:

I have two 5" x 5" prints. One I bought from the photographer for $250. It was printed on an Epson R2880 with archival inks on to Epson ultra premium photo paper luster at a resolution of 200 dpi. I made the other print myself using the exact same model printer, paper and resolution, using an image file I dragged on to my desktop from the photographer's blog. The look and quality of the two prints are indistinguishable.  What makes one print worth $250? Is the other worth the same amount now? Is the true value actually in the photographer's signature that's on the one I paid for? (Tad Barney)

The fundamental aspect of the question posed above relates very specifically to monetary value, which subsequently leads one to consider value more generally.  So, perhaps it would be useful to break it down a bit.  Determining what makes the “original” print worth $250 is equally suspect.  We might even begin there, as the question begins “what makes one print worth $250?”  I suppose the fact that $250 was paid for the print is what makes it worth that amount.  But further, how did the artist come to arrive at that amount as its value (or any monetary amount, really).  Generally, these determinations come from the reputation of the artist, the price point for works sold in the past and whether the print is from a limited edition.  Just as possible though, is that the price is an arbitrary number that an artist arrived at based upon a mixed bag of assumptions about how works of art acquire value and what sort of price one should sell their work for.  Ultimately then, it's up to the market as well as the consumer to determine whether or not something is worth a fixed monetary value (I cringe to even write such a sentence).

The second question is equally complex – “is the other worth the same amount now”?  I suppose a quick response would be, no.  The question of provenance arose in the comments following this prompt on Facebook, and that certainly comes into play – the second print did not originate with the artist, and was not printed to their specific standards.  Even if the same equipment and material was used, an image file (of sufficient quality) downloaded from the internet may differ substantially from the artist’s final print file, and colors and tones differ dramatically from monitor to monitor, making replication difficult.  Of course, if one has the “original” print to use as a source, a skilled printer could likely replicate it to the T (as in the scenario above), but what they would end up with would be an (as close to possible) exact copy of a print that is “worth $250.”  So, yes, if the concern is around monetary value it is unlikely this replica could be re-sold for that same $250 as indeed the artist’s signature is what distinguishes one from the other.  But, as to whether that is where all value lies, I would tend to call that into question.

What’s not being considered within the question is why another print would be made and whether or not monetary value is an essential component.  We can certainly all agree upon the questionable ethics of a commercial business deciding to replicate an artist’s print from an on-line file to hang in one of their properties.  Yet it would seem that monetary value would not be of import in such a hypothetical, rather its use value as decoration would be primary, and it would have not have the monetary value attached to works that belong to corporate collections, for instance.  But, let’s say an artist wants their work to be reproduced in this manner, and that they invite the public to download their files and print them at will.  Wherein lies the value here, and for that matter, how might one be designated as an “original”?   Perhaps in this instance the provenance lies within the concept, or on the computer server?  Most likely, the monetary value would be little to none in such a scenario, but that may very well be the point.  The use value may be substantial though, depending upon any number of things.  Is the work’s content intended to provoke dialogue or to bring about social change?  Are there aesthetic concerns at play related to reproduction and the inherent variance from one print to another?  Is the artist commenting upon the art market itself?  Or, does the artist make more “traditional” work that they simply would like to see disseminated more widely than selling individual pieces would allow for? 

I’ll close my thoughts by relating some of this to the current Klett and Wolfe piece installed at window.   The image is an excerpt from a larger piece designed and constructed by the collaborative pair.  A digital file was sent to me, which I passed along to the printer for reproduction.  The artists were kind enough to allow me to make decisions on my own about what excerpt to include, and how the work would be installed.  Now, admittedly, this scenario differs from what is discussed above, but there are certainly parallels.   I wonder how we might attach value to the piece currently affixed to the window, and whether we consider it to be equally valuable as the many other works produced by these artists and held in museum collections?  What is the value of the image that will be peeled off the window at the end of this exhibition and destroyed?  What is the value of each successive proof made during the process of production?  Is the value of a work of art diminished when it cannot be sold?  Or, does the true value lie within the very nature of its reproducibility?

Klett and Wolfe - Subverting Nostalgia and Kitsch

Mark Klett and Byron Wolfe, 2008. Reconstructing the view from the El Tovar to Yavapai Point using nineteen postcards.

Still thinking about last week’s conversations at the inaugural window opening, I’m prompted to post a few excerpts from the introductory essay written for the monograph that catalogues Klett and Wolfe’s project, Reconstructing the View.  In the essay, exhibition curator Rebecca Senf thoughtfully picks apart both the process and content of the work (and the direct relationship between the two) and also incorporates comments from the artists themselves.

There can be a sort of immediate response to work that repurposes the types of images that are used within the Klett and Wolfe montage currently on display at window (click HERE to view), especially for those unfamiliar with the pair’s prior and/or related work.  Indeed, the first associations that come forth might lead one to quickly assume the purpose of the image (and of its construction) is simply to playfully juxtapose colorful “retro” style images to re-create a beautiful landscape.  These aesthetic qualities surely play a role in the construction of meaning, but only when the process of questioning begins can the viewer see underneath this surface and begin to engage with a secondary set of concerns.

Below I’ve included a few excerpts from Senf’s essay that I think may help illuminate the work more broadly, and perhaps provide a richer understanding of the image currently on view at window.

Excerpts from Reconstructing the View

“A key component of Klett and Wolfe’s rephotographic framework is its subversive intent:  rather than reflecting a nostalgic interest, the historic images allowed the artists to question assumptions about the past, and, in so doing, to challenge generally held perceptions about the present and the future.” (Senf 18)

“For Klett and Wolfe, there is an important connection between this subversive intent and the fun they have in their working process.  Klett has described the link:  “I want to point out that part of this fun is in being subversive, I think we view our practice as the opposite of retro – that is, we’re not interested in historic images for nostalgic reasons, but because we view our practice as calling into question assumptions and established views about he past.  Ultimately this practice can cause one to question views of past, present, and future.  It’s a very activist result from a seemingly passive methodology.  This is important because my experience has been that repeat photography is associated with interest in the past or physical change, but we’ve become much less interested in the subject of physical change than in affecting how we perceive the subject.  The work is an exercise in visualization and examining expectations, and when it challenges what we expect to to see, we get excited.”  (Senf 40).

“The ‘El Tovar and Yavapai Point Postcard Mashup,’ (2008), features a range of postcards, made at different times and printed in various media, that are brought together and enlarged to call attention to their method of reproduction.  The work combines nineteen postcards, or portions thereof, to create a completely new collage of the view stretching from El Tovar Hotel to Yavapai Point, on the canyon’s South Rim…In most cases, the photographers decided to print works that incorporate postcards at roughly their original size, to preserve the feeling of the postcard as a familiar physical object…With the El Tovar and Yavapai Point postcard mashup, however, a large scale was imperative, for the work is about the postcard’s visual syntax, its language of representation.  Wolfe pointed out the kitschy draw of the exaggerated, amplified colors typical of postcards created in the first half of the twentieth century.  (He clarified that he does not use the term “kitschy” to denigrate the postcards but rather to describe their lasting and powerful appeal as collectible objects).  Enlarging the final work renders visible the various dot patterns of the original postcards’ reproductive processes, and the extreme palettes of maroon, bright orange, icy blue, and lemon yellow compete for dominance.”  (Senf 29, 30).

Klett and Wolfe in the Window

Mark Klett and Byron Wolfe, Installation View
(Professional Image to Follow)

There are many ways to begin thinking about the Klett and Wolfe piece that is currently installed in/at window.  In listening to and taking part in some of the conversations at the opening, I noticed a good variety of responses and was pleased to note that some of the questions that came forth were not easy to answer.  This is fantastic, as the purpose of this project is to promote dialogue and exchange – specifically in relation to contemporary artworks that engage with issues of representation and reproducibility as essential to the content of the work.  A good starting point for a discussion of any of the works in the space might be to simply question how the work on view relates to the above, and then, begin to think about why the artists made the choices they did (in terms of subject matter, mode of representation, manipulation of materials, etc.). 

In relation to the Klett and Wolfe piece, I’d like to mention a few things that seemed to be important to viewers.  First and foremost was the re-appropriation of antique postcards, which also relates to issues of authorship and originality.  This also prompted some to consider the retro/nostalgic associations that are sometimes attached to this kind of imagery.  Lastly, the primary image is a composite/montage created by grouping and relating numerous secondary images together – this makes the image somewhat distinct from a more straightforward photographic representation that describes one moment, from one vantage point.  A quick and cursory view of this work may yield a very different interpretation than a more prolonged engagement.  As well, the piece is entirely decontextualized from the pair’s larger body of work (on view inside the shop in the form of the monograph, Reconstructing the View), and is also an excerpt from a much larger piece containing a panoramic view.    

This project is meant to serve as public art, and I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the varying sets of knowledge that each participant will bring to this exchange.  We may not all share an understanding of the larger traditions of art history or contemporary critical theory, but we do all play a role in determining the cultural value of works of art.  But to do so, we must allow ourselves to thoughtfully engage in a process of questioning – of our own instinctive responses to art, our prior conceptions – and to continually re-assess our points of view.

So, with that, whether or not we are accustomed to discussing artists that re-appropriate vernacular photographs/images by including them in whole or in part within their own work, do we carry strong opinions about this one way or the other?  If so, where do those opinions come from?  And what about how the postcards are used in this work?  Is there a hierarchy at play within our minds that suggests a fabricated view is less significant than the depiction of a singular, straightforward representation? 

These are just a few initial little question/thoughts.  As always, please feel free to chime in via an authored or anonymous comment, or by starting a new thread by writing your own separate blog post (send those to dawnroe@gmail.com).