|
Post by rizza79 on Nov 6, 2012 10:33:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rizza79 on Nov 6, 2012 11:54:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ricosg11 on Nov 8, 2012 15:01:46 GMT -8
Im really enjoying her work and her process. It is really attractive. I just think it's overpriced by about 30%.
|
|
|
Post by jschmidtdmd on Nov 9, 2012 13:02:47 GMT -8
^ Really? Can you elaborate
|
|
|
Post by rizza79 on Nov 9, 2012 15:04:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by afroken on Nov 9, 2012 16:23:58 GMT -8
I have a real personal issue with this whole photography thing where the same image gets produced in 3 different dimensions ranging in edition size and dramatically in price. I'd find it hard to reconcile my desire to buy the rarer and more expensive large version in an edition of 2 with the fact that I could have bought the smaller scale edition of 5 for a lot less, which in this case is relatively sensible rather than other photographers where it's often a small scale edition of 10 or more. It suggests to me that the artist doesn't consider their own tangible output to be an art object per se, but rather just a photographic print to satisfy different price points. Add to that the incremental price increases and you can soon be paying more for the smaller version than the rarer large version if you're too late. It's all too confusing and calculated for me. Apart from that I quite like the work.
|
|
|
Post by lowpro on Nov 9, 2012 19:30:56 GMT -8
I am fascinated by her process and enamored by the visceral qualities of the work itself. That said, I too loath the incremental size/price scheme that some, if not most, photographic artists employ, whether as a result of their dealers or not. I've been doing my diligence on Jessica for a while and I'm not sure it's a fair assertion that she views her work as something merely to be reproduced as a result of the various editions. She does come across as cold and calculated in her interviews a times, but is also thoughtful and knowledgable about photographic history and how her work relates. She is deeply fascinated with and a master of both color theory and the antiquated 4x5 film camera she utilizes. I get the sense she's quite proud of the crazy process he's pioneered and the type of artwork that results.
And as it relates to the various editions as well, it seemed clear to me that the 40x50 was the absolute only way to go. So in that sense, I effectively disregarded the existence of the small and medium scales and didn't think of the larger one as rarer or whatever. It seemed a given to go that route. She's conveyed her work was intended to be presented at the larger scale. Presumably, experiencing them at 40x50 allows them to become incredibly immersive and truly capture the surprising painterly qualities of the work. And personally, I find pretty good value in 8k for a 40x50 in an edition of 2 with a proof, and when compared to the field is perfectly reasonable.
The install shots looks so good and can't wait to get back out there to see it in the flesh.
|
|
|
Post by mose on Nov 10, 2012 5:21:27 GMT -8
I don't know why just yet, but I just do not like this work as much as I figured I would.
I think, perhaps, it feels to me like photography as gimmick to sell work that painters are doing and doing better. There is a nice group of younger artists pushing photography in new, painterly ways that really expand things. I don't feel this work authentically does that.
|
|
|
Post by mose on Nov 13, 2012 14:27:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by wimbledongreen on Apr 10, 2013 19:50:51 GMT -8
When I initially saw these I liked the overall look especially of the angular, triangle-shaped compositions. And reading about how they are made drew me in more but having seen these in person as digital printouts left me underwhelmed. Since these are composed in a dark room by a seemingly complex method of light manipulation onto a piece of photo paper, shouldn't that object be the piece that's displayed in a gallery and sold as the final artwork? It takes it several steps backwards to then scan that photo paper then re-output it as an inkjet print. I understand there are monetary factors for producing editioned works but somewhere the original should have been displayed and sold similar to an original painting. Conceptually I lost interest seeing these as inkjet prints. They might as well be Photoshop compositions since the 'piece' being sold is an editioned work not the unique piece made in the dark room. As decoration, though, they look good. But the idea is invalidated imo by the way they are being sold as inkjets. Am I being too harsh here? There's definitely a trend in geometric/color abstraction going on so I think there will be a lot of new artists championed while the trend is hot and Eaton seems to be one of them.
|
|
guymo
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by guymo on Apr 11, 2013 2:12:44 GMT -8
Since these are composed in a dark room by a seemingly complex method of light manipulation onto a piece of photo paper, shouldn't that object be the piece that's displayed in a gallery and sold as the final artwork? It takes it several steps backwards to then scan that photo paper then re-output it as an inkjet print. Oh. If that is the process, it's a shame. I thought that she essentially composed the work "inside the camera" on the film, so that the prints that are displayed and sold are photographic prints produced from the film negative by whatever process. In my mind it was an analogue process, but I see now that M+B does list them as "archival pigment prints" which sounds like inkjet to me, so I am sure you are right. Guy.
|
|
|
Post by rizza79 on Apr 11, 2013 4:26:30 GMT -8
this may help to clarify a little more
"Everything is produced in her large format 4 x 5" camera. Basically, she gets cubes (she's been starting to use new forms which you can see in cfaal 208 and cfaal 212, but I'll just call them cubes for now for the descriptions because the process is the same) and paints them varying shades of white, black and grey. She then places one cube in front of her camera, and uses color separation filters and custom-made masks and photographs it. She then draws on her camera back lens where the cube was and notes the color. She repeats this process many many times, placing different sized cubes and using different masks and filters - always exposing the picture on the same piece of film. She only uses the primary color gels, so she creates all of the other colors by the theory of additive color. So basically, where ever you see white, all of the colors overlapped there."
|
|
guymo
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by guymo on Apr 11, 2013 5:59:11 GMT -8
Thanks -- that explains pretty clearly how the image ends up on the film. From there to the prints is I suppose "just printing" but it's something I know very little about. If there is a digital element to the process then I think that's a pity, since this work seems to be quite strongly defined by the process.
|
|
|
Post by wimbledongreen on Apr 11, 2013 10:47:07 GMT -8
This is from an Art In America article: "For her series “Cubes for Albers and LeWitt,” recently on view at the adventurous photo gallery Higher Pictures, Eaton photographed square wooden blocks of various sizes painted black, white and two shades of gray against similarly mono-chrome backgrounds. From these spare beginnings, she has conjured brightly hued geometric abstractions by exposing each sheet of film several times, switching blocks and filters for each exposure. In the resulting prints, images of individual cubes, photographed straight on or from an angle, are superimposed one on another in compositions...." This is where I may be wrong or mis-interpreting the article. The last sentence suggested to me that the resulting prints have different cubes which are printed on the paper (superimposed). If this is the case I think my criticism is valid. But if it's not the case and everything is done entirely on a piece of film negative then I'm totally wrong and a printout edition is fully justified. They inkjet printing used here still looks flat in person but that's purely subjective and in this day and age (almost) a non-issue.
|
|
|
Post by mose on Apr 11, 2013 11:59:15 GMT -8
jessica, educate. point people in the right direction with regard to understanding.
photography has long been quite stuffy in its formalism and a rather isolated group at the fine art level. the work done by yourself and other like-minded artists is opening up that world to a whole group of art fans with no background and prior knowledge of the medium. Of course misunderstanding is to be expected.
So, educate.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Apr 11, 2013 20:46:16 GMT -8
My issue has more to do with most photographers in general and is alluded to by afroken above.
Why so many prints of the same exact image? It does seem like a money grab relative to other art areas such as painting. Someone above said the Ed of 3 is 8k. Then you have a smaller size available in a larger edition number for 5k. So it doesn't take long and a single image can net over 50k. That is a pretty large sum of money (in aggregate) for a single image for an artist at the stage Eaton is at.
There are some photographers that seem to be largely breaking from this model (Beshty, Robertson, McCaw, Deschenes, Falls, Brandt) but most seem to still be grabbing for the cash.
Why not work harder and make more unique 1/1 images? Is it quality control? Money? Laziness?
|
|
|
Post by thewalrus on Apr 11, 2013 22:28:40 GMT -8
Additionally, drevil - you're comment about 'money grabbing' is not only offensive to any and all artists trying to make a living but also, ignorant on another level, pertaining to the fact that you clearly haven't a clue about the expensive of owning and operating a gallery. For the past 3 years, I've been working at a gallery as a sales consultant. I know for a fact that just to cover the nut, we're looking at selling no less than $100,000 per month to just be even. There is rent to pay, staff to pay, electric to pay, artists to pay, framers to pay, packaging and shipping agents to pay, insurance companies to pay, marketing costs to pay, advertising costs to pay, tear sheets to print and postage costs to mail those out, caterers to pay, website fees, etc, commissions to be paid the the consultants, commissions to be paid to the artists, printers to pay, etc. You really have no clue and shouldn't presume that you do. Most galleries go out of business and often times this is because they don't charge enough to cover the costs associated with staying in business. Artists are not lazy. They are some of the hardest working people I know. Very few of them make enough money to feasible create art. They create because they have to, not because they are trying to steal your money. I personally work 12 hour days, at a min. 7 days a week. I haven't taken a vacation in 3 years. I can say the same of most of the artists we have in our stable, first hand. Our best selling artist paints 80 originals a year - the demand for his work is even higher and if he could paint more, he would. He has a wife and three children under the age of 6. Do you think he has an easy life? You have no clue how much pressure artists and people on the business end of the art world have, in order for you to have the luxury of acquiring WORK for your collection. There is a reason artwork is called 'work'. I'm not going to say anything more except you should really not speak in public of what you clearly don't know.
|
|
|
Post by paulypaul on Apr 12, 2013 1:31:46 GMT -8
To précis the last two comments - business has expenses and to be successful you have to work hard and make sacrifices. So, what's your point?
|
|
|
Post by rizza79 on Apr 12, 2013 4:39:40 GMT -8
My issue has more to do with most photographers in general and is alluded to by afroken above. Why so many prints of the same exact image? It does seem like a money grab relative to other art areas such as painting. Someone above said the Ed of 3 is 8k. Then you have a smaller size available in a larger edition number for 5k. So it doesn't take long and a single image can net over 50k. That is a pretty large sum of money (in aggregate) for a single image for an artist at the stage Eaton is at. There are some photographers that seem to be largely breaking from this model (Beshty, Robertson, McCaw, Deschenes, Falls, Brandt) but most seem to still be grabbing for the cash. Why not work harder and make more unique 1/1 images? Is it quality control? Money? Laziness? this is obviously a point of conversation for people collecting work like this, myself included. however, I personally don't see what an issue with photographers in general has to do with the work they produce. imo, the work should stand alone and speak for itself. who cares who makes it as long as it is good? as for the whole different size thing. while I understand your logic, it really doesn't go to the work not being unique. isn't the work more the idea, the process, the end result before being produced for exhibition/sale? I'm not sure if you analogy with uniqueness of the other artists really carries too much validity in comparison with Jessica's work. ie:....Brandt's lakes are unique in the sense that they turn out different when they are submerged in the water. However, they are the same photo using the same water. So really its the process of production that is different. Same sort of thing with Falls. I don't think any of these artists are lazy. If anything, I think that they are working so hard that sometimes they delegate too much of the decision making in regards to pricing/availability to the galleries. Obviously that is a tough balancing act to manage, but "money grabbing" is probably not the correct term to use here. All the other financial stuff probably should be moved to the Economics/Business thread imo. This sort of thing can be discussed ad nauseam but how it affects collectors choices on collecting particular work really ends up being an individualized thing. At the end of the day, like Pauly said, it costs money to run a business.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Apr 12, 2013 5:19:20 GMT -8
Whoa, whoa. Chill out people. They were open ended questions and I asked because I don't know the answers. Glad to have provoked some responses though on this typically slow moving and dull forum. More later.
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Apr 12, 2013 6:12:28 GMT -8
All the other financial stuff probably should be moved to the Economics/Business thread imo. This sort of thing can be discussed ad nauseam but how it affects collectors choices on collecting particular work really ends up being an individualized thing. At the end of the day, like Pauly said, it costs money to run a business. Yes, typically artists threads are used to discuss the artist's work and although all other topics are related per say, it would best to use a separate thread for things like questions about photography in general.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Apr 12, 2013 6:22:17 GMT -8
Well. Just re-read the responses. Rizza is the only one who even attempted to address the main question of why not produce more unique work. Well? In fact all I really saw was a bunch of pissing and moaning about personal life issues. Pauly hit it head on.
I work hard to earn the money to buy art with some of that money. Artists need to work hard to earn that money and take it out of my pocket in exchange for their work. That is how it works. I don't really care if you have sacrificed or worked long days. I have too in a different profession.
|
|
|
Post by wimbledongreen on Apr 12, 2013 10:29:59 GMT -8
Money-grabbing is an unfortunate term but it points to the issue that has kept photography as the 2nd class citizen to painting. Editioning is an aspect of the main issue which I think is the time involved and "hand of the artist" which people appreciate in a painting.
With photography I think people generally don't appreciate the time involved and don't see any "hand" involved at least in the final object which is a print (especially inkjets since everyone owns an inkjet printer). And when you see multiple sizes/editions it emphasizes the speed in which the object can be made and the lack of the artist's hand in producing those prints (other than pressing the "print" button).
Eaton's photos are intersting because of the process going on within the camera but for me the process of producing the final object is not satisfying and the resulting print is lacking (maybe because I'm unfairly expecting 'more'). Brand't process of producing the final object is satisfying to me, I feel it completes the concept of his artwork.
Eaton and Brandt seem to be making work that uses photography techniques but in a new way so that the end goal is to come up with a new form or direction of photography. Eaton succeeds in the first half of the making, but for me falls short in the second half which is the print. But to be fair if everything is composed on a piece of film negative how else is she going to get a physical object except for a print? Perhaps then the idea is already fully explored with just different arrangements of squares, triangles, or shapes to be created.
Maybe this is part of the disconnect I get from Eaton's work. She has come up with a process where she makes unique compositions in camera which is fascinating. So I'm thinking that these are unique things that exist. But bringing it back to basics, she is still "photographing". Taking a picture on a negative. And so the overall arc is not so different than someone photographing a still life. If I view it that way I suppose I don't mind the standard editioning and prints.
That's a bit of a ramble somebody chop it up.
Disclaimer: I personally don't feel photography has a lesser value than painting but I think in terms of collecting value that's how most collector's feel.
|
|
|
Post by ricosg11 on May 1, 2013 15:02:10 GMT -8
disappointed to see much of this conversation was deleted.
|
|
|
Post by waltercrunk on May 1, 2013 16:20:29 GMT -8
Saw some of her pieces in person today. Amazing work really.
|
|