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?
