the work of art in the age of yadda yadda yadda

Along with linking here and sending the sitemeter spinning, Tyler yesterday noted a statement by a photographer friend of his explaining why she only produces her work in single prints rather than multiples.  It's an unusual choice, I imagine, though I hasten to add it's equally as valid as any other.  You really should read the whole statement, but this paragraph struck me:

Photographs document a certain time and space, light and shadow; they are representing something very, very close to reality, but they are as unique and delicate as paintings are. This is what I want people to understand about fine art photography.

I think we can all agree on that.  I am reminded of all the times I've visited the MFA and marvelled at one of my favorite paintings, Bonaparte Visiting the Plague-Stricken at Jaffa by Gros.  What's that?  The painting is actually in the Louvre?  So it is.  What hangs in Boston is a copy from his studio.

A number of different moves are possible at this point, all equally tedious.

You'll find them all in back issues of the right magazines.  For instance, one could point out that the paintings bear the mark of the artist's hand, and are not images produced from a machine process.  Or one could insist that the Louvre's painting is the original, done with more of Gros' involvement and bearing other marks of its superior status.  Conversely, there's the option of arguing that there are examples of paintings based on other works, in which the handmade, high status object is a copy or paintings that are essential serial with no original, and so on.  In other words, finding ways to defend individuality, singularity, hand, against the (essentially deconstructive argument, but it comes in other flavors) corrosive power of replication, repetition, and mechanism.

I don't mean to dismiss these issues entirely - they play a big role around topics such as copyright, which is pretty important to a lot of people.  But from another point of view, enough already.  Yes, as much as we value the singular object, we live in a world of multiples.  Duly noted.  As it is, so it has ever been, with lithographs, drawings, icons, and pointing machines.  And it's possible to view the whole game as a way of creating different market levels and price points, with autograph paintings, studio copies, prints and (these days) posters mirrored in the modern photographic world by limited (even singular) prints, then larger, less distinctive runs, and finally the photographer's book.  Robert and Shana ParkeHarrison, for example, from what I understand, do their works in very limited editions (generally 4 or 5) for their largest, heavily hand-worked images.  Down the scale are the smaller, less- or unmanipulated versions, and then the bound catalog.  Different strokes for different folks.

The singular photographic print is a valid choice, even if it denies (as the artist notes) the medium's potential and leaves aside the sort of commerical possibilities described above.  And sure, it's good to be aware of how arbitrary at times some distinctions are for all the importance we place upon them.  But to my mind, there's another lesson: ontological claims really aren't all that when it comes to art.

Comments

[Todd W.]

Another example is Gilbert Stuart, who was recently exhibited at the Met here in NYC. He basically made a living knocking out the same portrait of George Washington year after year, each for about $100. The Met show had something like 10-12 "editions" on display. Quite impressive, actually.

[JL]

I'm down with Gil - he's my homie. But yeah, same idea.