Not a real topic of information or controversy here, just some stuff that's been buzzing around my brain recently and I thought I'd jot it down to see if anyone has any thoughts on the matter.
This business of inkjet companies listing 200 years as "archival" bugs me. The fact that we have original DaVinci paintings from 400 years ago, now that's archival.
I think that's one of the things that detracts from the perceived value of digital printing. That and the relative ease of replication.
Rarity drives value. Regardless of the pictorial value (notice this is in the business section, not technique or gallery or even salon) the real value of something is what someone is willing to pay. And they'll be willing to pay a lot more for something there's only one of than something that can be cranked out all afternoon.
They'll also be willing to pay more for something their great-grandchildren can pass along to their grandchildren.
This has been a long-standing hindrance to the acceptance of photography as "Art", and it's compounded by the digital age.
This business of inkjet companies listing 200 years as "archival" bugs me. The fact that we have original DaVinci paintings from 400 years ago, now that's archival.
I think that's one of the things that detracts from the perceived value of digital printing. That and the relative ease of replication.
Rarity drives value. Regardless of the pictorial value (notice this is in the business section, not technique or gallery or even salon) the real value of something is what someone is willing to pay. And they'll be willing to pay a lot more for something there's only one of than something that can be cranked out all afternoon.
They'll also be willing to pay more for something their great-grandchildren can pass along to their grandchildren.
This has been a long-standing hindrance to the acceptance of photography as "Art", and it's compounded by the digital age.
Comment