Vintage Prints

Photographers who aren't collectors of photography might be only vaguely aware of the art market's obsession with so-called "vintage" prints. I consider it almost a form of hysteria, a sort of derangement.

A "vintage" print is one that the photographer made within a certain short time of taking the picture. The idea is that it's supposed to be more authentic, because it reflects how the photographer was working and visualizing at the time. Really, of course, it's yet another way of increasing scarcity and hyping rarity—important means of jacking up prices.

It makes a certain amount of sense, as most fundamentally bad ideas do. It's meant to distinguish between artifacts made in the thick of the creative drive that spawned them, and editions made later to capitalize (perhaps) on a picture's popularity or a photographer's increasing reputation.

There's nothing worse to the art market than a printmaker who can flood the market with perfectly good new prints of pictures that have already established a track record for value. It destabilizes prices, and acts as a sort of ex-post-facto deflation on the value of products that dealers might already have sold. If Great Photographer A made thirty prints when he was young of a picture that later becomes sought-after, those prints create a market value based on their scarcity and availability, one that is reflected in the established auction record. If GPA then makes another edition of 300 new prints of the same picture as an old man, the older prints would naturally be worth less—unless you could somehow distinguish them from the later prints.

Another reason vintage prints might be more "authentic" is because materials change over time. If Great Photographer B made a picture when he was printing on "real" Portriga (the good stuff, before they took the cadmium out), then presumably he visualized the picture and made the negative for printing on that paper. A modern paper might have a different characteristic curve and a different print color, etc., and the same negative couldn't be printed the same way it was originally. So even if the same photographer makes a print from the same negative, it might not result in a similar print to what what was originally intended.

All very sensible.

Arthur Rothstein felt he made his best prints of his famous dustbowl picture later in his life, on Agfa Portriga. This is a "vintage" print from the Library of Congress archives.

But the practice leads to all sorts of idiocy and distortion of real value, if "real" means the inherent value of a print as an art-object and craft-object, as something someone would want to own. Because if GPA makes a small batch of prints of a given picture right after he took it, and then a large batch of prints from the same negative 30 years later, it's clear which are vintage and which are modern, and preferring the vintage version might make sense. But what about Great Photographer C, who makes a few prints from the same negative every year for years after she took the picture—say, to fulfill sales orders for it?

In this case, the art market has a ready answer: vintage prints are considered to be those made within five years of the time the negative was made. Which is, of course, absurd. It means that GPC could have made five prints of a 1980 negative in 1984 and five more exactly identical prints in 1986 and the former would be worth more than the latter. Really? (I always wanted to schedule a printing session for a certain negative exactly five years after it was made, so prints from the very same darkroom session would be split between "vintage" and "modern" versions. I'd do it, too, except for the considerable fly-in-the-ointment that nobody in the art market cares about my prints whatever their age.*)

And what about the case of a photographer who shoots a lot during a hectic youth, and prints a lot in a more leisurely older age?

The vintage and the modern David Vestal.

More than that: what about a photographer who learns to be a better printmaker later in life, and makes later prints that are much superior to his earlier ones? This is David Vestal's main objection to the "vintage print" mania. He feels he's making much better prints recently than he used to, but that collectors and galleries prefer, and pay more for, his inferior earlier prints than for his superior later ones. (He'd also probably like to be able to make the same money for prints he could make now as he gets for older ones.)

Of course the materials argument can be turned on its head too. What if an old negative can be printed much better on newer materials? What if the photographer was simply too impoverished to buy good paper back when he took the picture, but later in life can lavish more money and time on making great prints?

An absurdity that's unfortunately not uncommon these days is that some really crappy scraps of peoples' early work—repro prints, file prints, proofs—are going for highly inflated prices just because they're vintage. They're rare, don'cha know. Oooh.

Is it good?
Personally, I think two things should mainly have an impact on the value of a print: whether the photographer made it—or, in the case of photographers who didn't ever make their own prints, whether it was made under their supervision and with their approval during their lifetimes, which would mainly be signified if they signed it; and how good a print it is. Personally, I'd much rather have a really good modern print of a picture I liked than an obviously inferior but "vintage" one.

There should be no distinction made between the age of prints made by a living photographer, certainly. As long as a print is made or approved by the photographer as meeting his or her standards as his or her art, it makes no sense to me to exalt some and scorn others, except on the basis of intrinsic merit.

...In a perfect world, that would be.

Mike

*They'll be sorry when I'm dead!

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by John Camp: "I have a collection of prints both vintage and non-vintage, although the vintage prints are usually the ones that were not so sought-after (by photographers who were out of fashion, or 'lesser' images by photographers who were in fashion) because the very designation drove the prices of sought-after prints out of my buying range.

"And my feeling is that, in general, the later prints are better. As a photographer becomes better known, and more experienced, and has more money to spend on printing, and is more sensitive to reputation, the technical quality of the prints seems to improve.

"Also, the flip side of the concept of 'initial authenticity' is 'he thought about it longer and more deeply.' This last aspect is pretty visible in iconic prints like Adams' 'Moonrise.' I've seen some vintage prints that seem not so good to me, because I'm not sure he'd fully conceptualized them, to use an offensive cliche. Art ideas do evolve, and later is often better.

" 'Vintage' isn't always a sales tactic. There are genuine 'vintage prints'—prints by people like Julia Margaret Cameron, of which only one or two exist. But what is a 'vintage print' by someone like Richard Prince, who didn't even make the original? I think 'limited edition' would be a better designator in those cases...."

Featured Comment by Maxim Muir: "Hello Mike,

"Years ago, the Joslyn Museum in Omaha had a deplorable exhibit of Dorothea Lange vintage prints. Many well known classic images were included, but the prints had bad to horrible fading/sulfiding from age and environmental (air pollution) exposure. To make matters worse, the lighting on the prints was poor (as if the dim lighting would effect the deteriorating prints further). Archival printing methods were not practiced in the 1930s–1940s and it clearly showed in this exhibit.  :)

"My poor wife had to listen to me make variations of the same remark endlessly the entire time we were there; 'let me get my hands on the negatives, and I will make prints that do not sully Ms. Lange's reputation.' What value is there to a vintage print when it makes the viewing experience a positively painful one?

"I had a similar experience with an Edward Weston show at the same venue. I was hoping to see some beautiful Cole Weston prints of the classic images (Cole was a better printer of his father's work IMO). What I saw was more deteriorating/random sulfiding of some of my favorite Weston photos. Since Weston is among my photographic heroes (along with Bruce Davidson and John Sexton) the sight of these prints literally filled me with sadness, and tears were visibly flowing from my eyes! (My wife thought I was being moved emotionally for other reasons:))

"Honestly, I would gladly pay more (if I had the funds) for a Cole Weston print than any vintage Edward Weston original. How are deteriorating/ badly printed vintage prints going to convince any non-photographers among us to appreciate the artists involved? It sure beats me!"

Comments

[MikeWebkist]

It's prices segmentation. Let museums and art-investors bid themselves to nirvana over "vintage" prints. People who care about having the art and not the resale value have cheaper access to non-vintage prints as a result.

Which is pretty much how the world sorts itself out. Museums buy the "real" prints for millions and then sell coffee table books and posters and prints at the gift shop.

[Player]

Mike, I'm with you, and Larry Kudlow, get rid of mark-to-market accounting. ;)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Once again I seem to agree with you. So, the current state of the art market is good for us as collectors -- it sends the big money chasing the prints we don't value that much, leaving the others for us. Not so good for artists, though, who end up not getting good prices for their good prints a time of life when they may need the money.

Remember, art collecting is about the collecting, not about the art. (Certainly some people can appreciate both at once.)

[Dalton]

Tangentially related: what about the whole notion of limiting editions of photographs in general? A photograph, by nature, can be reproduced an infinite number of times, but the art market seems to favor more expensive limited editions. I am OK with it in the sense that it creates an incentive to purchase (especially when edition numbers are low or an edition is just about to sell out), but I've never been happy about the fact that, once I've made and sold that last print, I can never make another one again.

[MikeWebkist]

But clearly here, the real issue is not so much "vintage" vs. "modern" prints. It's about who makes the profit off the art. Vintage prints most likely made the artist very little money, but made collectors lots.

It's understandable that artists would want to capture more of that profit, but I don't see how it's possible, without trying to go toward some sort of licensing scheme where you're "leasing" the work from an artist. And I think anything like that is just doomed to failure (with good reason.)

[yclee]

Right on, Mike.

I think that this near-obsessive focus on "vintage prints" among collectors, dealers, and other cogs of the "art market" is just one aspect of the great divide between that world and the artist-photographer's. The interests / desires / goals of the market -- those who treat the artist's work as a commodity to be bought, sold, invested in, traded, etc. -- often don't align with that of the person who made the "product" (who likely created the work because he just had to or wanted to, regardless of whether anyone would pay him to do it or not).

E.g., I personally would much prefer that (cost/production issues aside) 10,000 people had a print of one of my photographs, at a cost of $1 each, rather than 2 people having a print each at a cost of $5000. Assuming that the profit to me is the same (i.e., likely meager in either case), I would prefer that more people see / own my work than fewer.

The art market, of course, would much prefer the opposite. Scarcity is a driving force in that world, and collectors take great pride in owning rare items (I've had the collecting affliction in the past, for midcentury design objects and furnishings). Collectors generally aren't interested in things that anyone else can have.

Somewhat relatedly, I've long had some discomfort with the very idea of collecting photographs. I understand that individual prints can be precious objects, art items worthy of being cherished. But collecting almost always demands scarcity in the items sought, and the notion of enforcing scarcity on photographs seems to go against one of our medium's fundamental aspects -- that it is democratic, in many ways, one of which is that photographs (well, most) are infinitely reproducible. It's not a painting in this respect -- and this is something we should embrace.

'Nuff rambling.

[Blake Andrews]

Since when have prices in the art world made any logical sense? It's all a big confidence game. I'm not sure what the point is in complaining about it. It is what it is.

[Andy Chen]

The vintage print carries with it some historical significance. If an image changed how people percieved art and/or the world in its time, then that old print, with its old interpretation did it, not the new one made today.

Isn't this similar in other collector's markets with multiples? Think old books, or music on vinyl. Surely, the newest editions of these classics are higher quality. Yet, the first printings are more collectable.

[Phat Photographer]

I think anytime you have a few people, with too much money, as the bulk of your market, you'll be exposed to irrational pricing. I'm just a simple guy - if it looks good and I can afford it and have a place to hang it, I'll buy it.

[Bernard]

Of course, the real question is 'which one looks better on my wall?'

[Mark S+]

I took a workshop with Mr. Vestal 20+ years back; I enjoyed it, and in retrospect, learned a great deal from it. One thing that has stuck with me was (I'm paraphrasing here) that the art business is art's traditional enemy.

[Tim]

Before you judge vintage seekers too harshly, consider your own value guide: why does the photographer's creation or approval of the print matter? I read a while back about a painting selling for something like $4 million that will be worth either $4,000 or $40 million depending on if it is or is not proven to be by the famous artist (Rembrandt, if I recall correctly, vs just being by his student). I must confess I would want the print to be by the photographer, and I wouldn't spend millions unless I was getting Rembrandt, but when I thought about this I have to admit it's not terribly logical.

Let me give you a hypothetical: which would you value more, a very good print of a favorite photo by the photographer (not famous, as we don't want you considering resale value, but value to you), or an even better one, as in clearly superior in quality, made after the photographer's death because the estate commissioned a master printer to do a retrospective? (Bonus question: would it make a difference to you on the value if you knew the photographer had wished his negatives destroyed so no one could do just that type of printing?). I probably would want the photographer's print, but I admit this preference is just as arbitrary as the "vintage" one. It's almost like brand loyalty.

Then again, the assignment of the "vintage" label for under 5 years and over 5 years from the time of the photograph just seems arbitrary and absurd. I think I could understand it were identified as a "first printing," like books often are, but if it's just a date then who cares. To each his own I guess.

[Tim]

Actually, I want to follow up that hypothetical with maybe a more difficult one: a very good print by the photographer vs an even better one made against the photographer's wishes by the new rights holder after the rights were seized. If how good it is were the only measure, clearly one buys from the bank. Could certainly happen, see your current favorite photographer Ms. Leibowitz' loan.

[Ken Tanaka]

I agree with you, Mike. But the core of this particular topic is related as much to the antique market as it is to the art market. Of course they overlap, not coincidentally in identifying and promoting distinctive unreproducible qualities that can command premium prices from fetishists. Whether or not those qualities are of any practical benefit, or were actually early shortcomings, is immaterial to followers.

[Robert Noble]

Anyone want to make an even trade of their beat-up first edition of "The Americans" for my more recent, non-yellowed, better-printed copy?

Seriously, and on a different track, I would like to hear your take (as someone suggested above) on the arbitrarily "limited edition" approach (not as applied to necessarily-limited-by-darkroom-time silver prints or dye transfers, but rather to digital prints spat out of a huge inkjet printer).

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

I love GPA's work. I always wanted a print of his Moonrise Over Flock Of Sheep.

[ctein]

Dear MikeW.,

Laws that allow the artist to share in future profits are not at all uncommon. It doesn't involve "leasing" at all. The new owner owns the artwork and the artist has no claim on the physical work. It just specifies (in some form or another) that if the work is sold for $X (or X%) more than it sold for previously, the artist gets some fraction of the amount above X.

The size of X, the fraction that goes to the artists, and so on all depend on the specific implementation of the law, but the basic code is pretty straightforward.

Most of the ostensibly "real world" arguments for and against it are red herrings (the artist living in poverty while their works sell for a small fortune is an extraordinarily uncommon stereotype; the suggestion that this somehow "distorts the art market" just makes my head hurt it's so incomprehensible; the paperwork required to track this is in no way difficult). I think it just boils down to people's preferences. I think it's fair and just; I have entirely sympathetic-but-libertarian friends who would consider it inappropriate for law. In my judgment, none of us can marshal particularly compelling arguments that actually have anything to do with art, artists, or the specific issue. It's one of those "policy" things that some people think is a good idea and some think is a bad one.

This is only vaguely related, but I think you might have alluded to it. Understand that when you buy an original artwork, you're buying that physical work, but you're not acquiring any copyright. You are not getting any "license" from the seller unless that's explicit in the sales contract.

Most of us here would know that about photographs. If I buy a photograph from you, I don't have the right to publish it in a book, or make posters of it or put it on T-shirts, not without a license from you for that use. What many people don't realize is that it's true of all artwork. You buy a painting, you get the painting. You don't get reproduction or derivative rights for its use. Those stay with the creator (until they are explicitly sold or transferred).

~ pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

"What if the photographer was simply too impoverished to buy good paper back when he took the picture, but later in life can lavish more money and time on making great prints?"

The thing is, the art market is schizoid. Some of the time it's about art and aesthetics. And some of the time it's about an investment game. When it's the latter, the pleasing or artistic qualities of a work are a distant second consideration. When they are considered at all.

[Nick]

All of a sudden, half way through this post, it dawned on me... I have a Johnston print lying around somewhere! I framed it right away and finished reading the post with Elliot looking over my shoulder!

[Mike Johnston]

Tim,
To answer your hypothetical, I would personally prefer the better print not made by the photographer. (I actually do prefer pristine reissues of LP records and excellent quality modern editions of books to the originals.) But I would consider it wholly logical if the conventions of the market as a whole were to prefer the photographer's own prints.

Caveat: the "better" prints couldn't go against the photographer's own known style or intentions...that is, I wouldn't want a "normal contrast" Ralph Gibson or a high-contrast Henry Wessel....

Mike

[JonA]

I couldn't agree more, Mike. This is the art market's way of creating scarcity of something quasi-duplicable. Down goes supply, up goes price.

I like to collect things but I'm interested in what is attractive to me and well-made whereas the majority of the collecting market likes to collect what is rare. For example, I don't care how rare that penny is. It looks like all the others. I just like coins with architechtural images on them. Or look- that camera is the special year of the ox version in only 10 known examples! So what? It still takes pictures the same as the regular model. "Yes, but this one goes to 11."

Additionally, I do not have the room or equipment for a darkroom. So, if I have a technically perfect negative I have no way to make a print that later on the museums would want. (Not that I will ever be famous).

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Dalton: The whole idea of limiting editions, eh? In photography, I'm against it. It evolved when the printing technology couldn't make as many prints as people really wanted, and the quality of the print degraded through the run if you tried, and in that context it made sense.

Applying it to photography is relatively artificial, and I don't really like that (you probably can't make millions of prints from a negative without damaging it, but that's not the kind of number relevant to "limited" editions; and digital prints of course you can make as many as you need, buying a new printer each time you wear the old one out, because the *file* isn't wearing down).

You're also dependent on the artist to respect the edition they've declared (and suddenly introducing another edition, say a bigger size, is apparently fair game).

This also encourages artists to destroy negatives, which my archivist part and my academic part seriously hate.

It's done basically to get the artist more money (some people won't buy and some galleries won't handle non-limited editions, right?), and while I think some artists get more money than they deserve, they still get it almost entirely from people who want their art buying it, and I can't object to that.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I've read and enjoyed what David Vestal has to say almost forever, and enjoy his pictures whether in collections like "The New York School," or in his newsletters. He captured a furious Manhattan rainstorm (reproduced in the NYSchool) that I've never seen equalled. But why is it that in the two pictures, it is the vintage Vestal that seems to be the Grump?

scott

[Mani Sitaraman]

This article made my eyes well up, unexpectedly.

Vintage Portriga... :(

(Writer sniffs,wipes away a sentimental tear}

[Richard Man]

How does this work in the era of digital prints? Are there any differences between vintage and non-vintage then?

[CB]

I appreciate early 'vintage' Johnston comments on photographic equipment. I often like them much better than later ones. Although he may have made better comments recently than he used to, his recent attempts to comment on almost anything in and outside photography dampens the worth of the more recent ones. Also, the more recent comments begin to create inconsistencies with the 'vintage' ones. ;-)))

[hugh crawford]

On the one hand Neil Selkirk is a much better printer than Dian Arbus was, ( or maybe a lot of Arbus's prints are in circulation that would not have have been had she lived ) but on the other hand her prints have an emotional pull that in part derives from their flaws.

[Andy Levin]

Isn't collecting anything a form of insanity anyway?

[John Sartin]

In a recent conversation with a friend that works in a gallery it was stated that the change in available printing papers was really affecting the perceived quality, desirability and price of some photographers work. I should also comment that I would rather own a less than perfect print created by the photographer than one technically superior made by someone with a less passionate investment in the photo. That may no make sense but it is where I come from on the issue. Well made and well created may not always be the same when it comes to art.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

John Sartin: The artist may very well not have any passionate investment in his image by the time he makes the print. This is part of the argument *for* "vintage prints", of course. Particularly a successful artist can easily get tired of his own popular favorites. It seems to me I'd read that Ansel Adams was rather tired of Moonrise, for example.

[Mike Johnston]

DD-B,
Indeed. But then, he should have been, since he printed more than 800 copies of it in his lifetime!

I think it's very common for artists to get weary of their most popular undying chestnuts as time goes on. Beethoven was reportedly quite tired of the popularity of the Moonlight Sonata, for instance, and Brian Wilson was reportedly tired of "Good Vibrations."

Of course many artists eventually come to the realization that having a great popular hit whose popularity never diminishes is better than not having one. Chubby Checker made an entire career out of "The Twist," happily singing it several times a night hundreds of nights a year, year after year, decade after decade. Beats a wage-paying job, I guess.

Mike