I noticed on the Top Ten List, you (mason, i presume) referred to Lita Rawdin's work as "Very Collectable". Not that I disagree, but I would love to see a string expounding on what makes a photograph "collectable". As opposed to "sellable" or whatever.

DM

-- Don Minton (minton2@mindspring.com), January 22, 1999

Answers

Hmmm, I think that Mason had an editorial about that. I think the synopsis for your work being collectable is: you're dead. :-) (It was a tongue-in-cheek editorial)

I guess Mason figures that Lita will either be famous later on, or dead very soon. I think Mason lives in the NY area. Mason, do you have any mob ties? Know anybody by the name of Guido? >D

Collectable vs. Sellable:

Collectable photographs have lasting value (many things by Ansel Adams), vs something which would sell now, but wouldn't sell later on.

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), January 25, 1999.

Brian wrote... >Hmmm, I think that Mason had an editorial about that. Part right: I ran an opinion piece subtitled "Photographers are dying for their work become collector's items", but it was not written by me. Jon Fishback was the author. >I guess Mason figures that Lita will either be famous later on, or
>dead very soon. Or, Jon's opinions don't necessarily reflect mine! >Mason, do you have any mob ties? Heaven forbid! But I do have some neck ties. (Sorry for that old gag...) (Groucho mode off) > Collectable photographs have lasting value (many things by Ansel Adams), vs something which would sell now, but wouldn't sell later on. An interesting distinction: some photos are sellable and will find buyers for more utilitarian purposes...like to be used as office wall art and the like. These sort of things aren't on the same level as a "collectible" as most will probably not increase in value. So what's "collectible"? Still an open question. I wonder if anyone from an auction house could answer that... ~mason

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.coim), January 25, 1999.

I believe that while many photographers can purposely or accidentaly create a great image that may find its way into some collectors inventories to be truly collectable the image must be a part of a collectable body of work. Do you think Ansel Adams images would be collectable had he only produced one or two good photographs? If an image strikes a person's inner self then that image is immensely collectable to that person, but may never sell to a third party. It would sell to a third party if it were known that the artist had created many desireable image that constituted a body of work. Of course, images should be purchased for their value to each individual viewer without regard to their collectable (monetary) value to the next generation of buyers. However, we all know that Adams images sell because he developed a name and reputation for his body of work. Each image constituting that body was deemed collectable by someone on its individual merit, but remains collectable because of the reputation of the body of work he created.

-- Ed Kane (gargoyle@wa.net), February 09, 1999.