All is just fine.. As far as the collectible market.. In all honesty your sort of right …..by that I mean all market types have areas that are exploited possibly unfairly… I mean think about it.. Diamonds are overvalued, typically as it’s a very controlled market.. Classic cars have been restored much of which is made to look like original but it’s not.. The list goes on and on.. Even gold…. it was higher than Platinum and is much more common.. Big money shoves it up. In the end even though parts and pieces of it may not show up right or seem credible.. We really maybe should not spend too much time looking at the small segments or pieces that are broken we , I think, should step back and look at the whole.. Then try to figure out how we fit in and just do the very best we know how. I mean if everything was all cut and dried we’d all be selling our prints for xx per square inch and that would be that.. way boring……We don’t do that because most of us put our hearts into what we do and of course our commitment to tools or toys is very diverse. So in the end to me , no kidding, the price doesn’t matter.. It’s really all about value whether it’s actual or perceived.. As a service provider it’s sort of hard to get ones arms around that sometimes but as an artist it shows up pretty quick.. It is all pretty much focused on one simple word.. Credibility.. That’s a pretty magic word when you really dig into it. Back a few years ago a good friend of mine and an awesome western artist passed.. Larry Zabel.. In conversation one day I asked him how he priced his commissions.. He used two factors … Image size and followed by a sq inch cost.. he shared the detail of that with me ..I pretty much fell over.. no kidding.. But that was the box, pricing wise, that he was credible in.. Now the kool part…he earned that boy did he.. So going back to the list of works I posted .. I saw several pieces that I just couldn’t get it price wise.. But in truth I’m not supposed to get it as that is not an area that I’m credible in so how could I possibly understand.. So in the end…. Right, wrong or indifferent I kinda like the idea that someone is credible up in those zones.. It’s a hell of a place to set the bar …right? J jimbo From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 10:47 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting Thanks Jim. I had a few things wrong as usual, but certainly correct as far as Lik is concerned. He shouldn't even be on that list due to the fact that once again, his sale was nothing more than an empty claim. The whole collectible art market is suspect in my opinion though. In a very self-serving way, they promote high value to the ordinary. -----Original Message----- From: 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 11:01 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting Hi John … I’m doing this out of memory.. I honestly tried to do a search to find the images.. This is not a Peter Lik photo. It was actually two pieces … as I recall… they were either 4x8’s or 5x10’s.. The two images were of a store or produce display in a market.. and they were hung one over the other I think ….maybe side by side... So a duo tic if you will. They were about 3M but might have been like 2.8 or something like that .. It’s honestly been too long …. I can’t remember …sorry.. I will try to track it down and follow up.. So I’ll be digging.. The work I’m referring too I know was done with silicon not a film as that piece had me look at what you and I started playing with.. It was done by the folks that do Diasec face mounting …I originally saw the image on a web site of a firm that did the Diasec process.. Ok here we go I found it I got lucky… https://www.slrlounge.com/2-most-expensive-photographs-in-the-world/ It’s the forth one down by Andreas Gursky ..It was “auctioned” at Sotheby’s.. take the time if you will to check out the pieces listed.. Lik is way down the list.. there are a few pieces on the list face mounted.. so interesting maybe.. Note Robert Mapplethorpe’s pic of Andy … #26.. I totally love the originality of the framing.. Wowser… As far as your point regarding high value.. I understand where you’re coming from. I was however coming from a totally different place on this one. We’ve discussed Liks outrageous pricing and a few others way back when ..My point here was simply to show that a face mounted print had value.. At the time It was touted as the highest priced photograph back then.. As far as your fraud comment.. I think that’s more of a personal opinion.. I honestly can’t mess with that and for me it would wrong to do so….. we are all entitled to feel the way we do and that is totally ok.. You and I have been buds for a long time and I totally respect your perspective on things.. I mean that.. It’s ok.. The longevity of doing this process to photographs and or artwork I think is not intended to last 1000 years.. That is no secret.. The resins in the acrylics will deteriorate over time.. at a rate depending upon it’s exposure to the elements. I think we both know that a hot shot original oil painting will fail over time also if it is not properly taken care of. That being said I think this process has a purpose and is typically done with a print not an original.. But it still is a display method for what we consider to be artwork. I have done quite a few pieces using both film and silicon.. and I do feel that for many types of displays in certain places it’s the cats meow and absolutely the right way to do it.. So I also get where you’re coming from when you say it might devalue a piece.. but there is another side to that which I think is application sensitive.. I’ll try to explain.. Let’s take two identical high end B&W prints.. one of them gets archival mounted, double matted, museum glass and a fancy custom frame.. The other is face mounted to acrylic.. Clearly the intent of both is very different as was the cost to produce the end output.. So the fancy one hangs in a lawyer’s office while the other is on the wall at McDonalds.. Both were done to suit the application and to me while I know their very different their both winners and done correctly for their intended use. Ok now let’s raise the bar further….just cause we can… suppose we took 2 of Cindy Sherman’s prints (she’s on the list) I have a hard cover book of her work in my book case ..Her work is some of the most thought provoking I have ever seen.. Anyway.. I think if you took two identical prints of hers.. and did one up with fancy mounting and framing and the other using the Diasec process … I would agree that the fancy version would likely auction for more but how much more is anybody’s guess the real value is in the print and I’d bet both would be very collectable and expensive as all get out.. Part of this maybe due to that we’re used to more traditional practices regarding how art is done and presented.. I mean here we are saying that ink jet technology is collectable …is it more collectable or valuable than a wet process print? Or an alt process print? jimbo From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:58 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting Good post Jim, but I wanted to toss in my 2 cents. The print you mention was reported sold by the photographer himself, Peter Lik, for over 5 million dollars in a private sale to an unknown buyer, so there's no proof of any of it. None of his work has sold in the secondary market, so the value and the whole thing has been highly questionable, bordering on fraud. I'm also pretty sure his work is done using the first method of adhesive coated Mylar rather than silicone, but that part doesn't matter. I have a problem with the whole concept of putting a high value on these prints because they're an accident waiting to happen. Drop one on the corner or scratch the plastic and you have nothing. A print in a traditional frame with protective museum grade acrylic glazing is far more worthy of an investment in my opinion because it can be curated. Even ancient pottery can be restored if it's been shattered to bits, but not these. Prints can also delaminate from the plastic over time due to environmental conditions. Acrylic face mounting a print certainly has a great and slick look, and it will last longer than a print that's not sealed - so long as it's not physically damaged. I used to do a lot of this kind of work, but I never marketed it as collectible fine art. It's commercial decor to be enjoyed today rather than a wise fine art investment expected to hold value for future generations. There are many, including myself, who believe that the process can even reduce the value of a print. IMHO jc -----Original Message----- From: 'Jim Bechtel' mrjimbo2@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:50 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting You can use an acrylic that has a UV protection and if you use the right adhesive films the process can be said to be archival.. The other way to do this is to use a silicone adhesive but this process is much more involved (commonly known and Diasec face mounting) .. Both John C and myself played with these processes a while back.. I still have cases of silicon here.. Unless it’s changed the most expensive photograph ever sold was a large Diasec image encapsulated using silicon.. About 3 million or something like that .. can’t remember now.. Anyway, using either way the images display very well. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13033 - Release Date: 09/17/16 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Posted by: "Jim Bechtel" <mrjimbo2@...> ------------------------------------ Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. Please follow these basic guidelines: - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice. - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership. - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/ BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP. ------------------------------------ Yahoo Groups Links No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13041 - Release Date: 09/18/16 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Message
RE: [Digital BW] Acrylic face-mounting
2016-09-18 by Jim Bechtel