Comments on: Why is Jonathan Sobel suing William Eggleston?

By: photart

photart — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:10:05 +0000

W Eggleston is 80 +, living in sheltered accommodation. He is frail and elderly. Any recent decision to reprint images was probably made by his foundation/estate management.
They are doing what our capitalist society determines they should, capitalise on their asset. This has nothing to do with art, everything to do with art brokers.
An infinite number of copies of an image is exactly what modern technology allows which is why B & W prints made by Ansell Adams can command the prices they do.

By: nyphotogirl

nyphotogirl — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:17:13 +0000

Eggleston’s works may well have been undervalued and his artistic legacy under appreciated; many of his pieces from the 1970′s are among the most iconic images of the American vernacular. However, that does not give him–or his children–the right to return to the archives and reprint his previously editioned and long sold out “greatest hits”.

If you look at the new digital works next to the original dye transfer prints, the only difference you will notice is size. The images are otherwise identical in virtually all respects. Simply because they are printed on an inkjet does not make them different. In fact, inkjet has become a necessity rather than an artistic choice. Dye transfer chemicals are no longer made; Kodak is bankrupt and the technology is obsolete. The world of photography migrated to digital years ago. It is not a new art form.

If Eggleston wanted to make different sizes, he should have made them simultaneously, so there was full disclosure to collectors. If you want the ability to make unlimited copies, don’t take the additional upfront money that limited editions provide by virtue of their being limited. Don’t blame the collector on this one. Why would anyone pay a substantial sum of money for a work of art if an infinite number could be produced?

By: dcanyc

dcanyc — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:38:18 +0000

eggleston’s prices before the christie’s auction were too low compared to the seniority and importance of his work. many regard eggleston as the greatest living photographer in the world. this sale not only helped his family trust raise needed money to continue their important work, and, indeed, may be part of an effort by the artist and his dealers to raise and correct prices to where they should be. keeping prices too low for too long can have a long-range negative effect on an artist’s market and work. re: making larger prints now, no journalist nor lawyer has mentioned eggleston’s actual intention, that no color printing process previously could achieve the quality that eggleston needed when enlarging to the new scale. new digital processes have now made this possible. the new prints are absolutely stunning. their prices may seem high to many, but still seem too low to me when compared with other contemporary photography and art. william eggleston waited decades to get the quality he needed in these large prints, then got pounced on by journalists and moronic collectors who labeled him opportunistic. compared to thousands of other artists who have embraced greed in their production mode, eggleston is not one of them. sobel should be forced to resign his position as board member at the whitney museum, who organized the recent eggleston retrospective.

By: LewisNClark

LewisNClark — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:18:27 +0000

The main question I have is what did Eggleston represent when initially selling a “limited edition” of the prints?
Did he say “I will only make 20 original prints of this image”? Or is he playing the game of the now deceased Kinkade and calling every 1/4 inch difference in size a “new edition”? Kinkade had limited editions approaching 35,000 prints. Is Eggleston now trying to do this?

If I bought a editioned print I would not be happy either to later see ‘new originals’ in a different size unless that had been specified up front.

By: mfw13

mfw13 — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 12:19:10 +0000

I would argue that the advent and growth of digital photography is going to lead to a reduction in the value of “art” photography in general, as it becomes easier and easier for amateurs to take good photographs. I see hundreds of photographs online every month that are as good if not better than what you see hanging on the walls of museums.

By: TFF

TFF — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:15:42 +0000

Moopheus, art collecting isn’t about owning great art. It is about name dropping and membership in an exclusive club.

That is why Sobel feels wronged. His exclusivity has been violated. Now how is he going to impress his party guests?

By: Moopheus

Moopheus — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 12:46:36 +0000

Quasi–clearly you’ve never seen a dye-transfer print up close. A book can’t match them. I’m kinda dubious that an inkjet could match them, too. Never mind, I suppose, that the real reason Eggleston can’t make more dye-transfer prints is that the dye-transfer materials just aren’t made anymore. At least Sobel can console himself knowing that his grandchildren will still have his print after the inkjet has faded. (This is why the dye-transfer print will retain value–it is actually preferable).

Felix, console yourself knowing that there are many, many fine photographers out there who will sell you a great print for far less than $15K.

By: CallumW

CallumW — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 12:24:04 +0000

At 72 and in his sunset years, he’s probaby thinking how the residual honeypot that he’s sitting on will best serve his children and granchildren.

Can’t blame a man for looking after the interests of his family

By: Quasimodo3000

Quasimodo3000 — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 03:51:12 +0000

Great article – but heres a secret of the photo market, if you can stand it – go out and buy the BOOK of Eberle’s photos, carefully cut out the page you like, frame it & put it on the wall. Book porbably costs $60.