Ooops, Mr. Eggleston!

Recently I wrote about the March 12th auction of William Eggleston's prints at Christie's in New York City and how important I thought the sale was to the validation of digital pigment prints. Eggleston's 1973 image of a child's tricycle sold for $578,500 ... a whopping price for a digital pigment print.

Yesterday I learned that a New York collector, Jonathon Sobel, had filed suit against Mr. Eggleston, his son, William Eggleston III and the Eggleston Artistic Trust. In his suit, Mr. Sobel claims that his collection of more than 190 Eggleston prints "has been devalued by the auction held at Christie's on March 12th and that the Trust had violated the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law." The suit further claims "fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel."

So, what is this all about? Mr. Eggleston produced another edition of his works in another medium (digital pigment prints). Most of Eggleston's previous prints were done in the dye transfer process. Mr. Sobel's lawsuit is based upon, in my opinion, the assumption that the works that he owns, are and will be the only representations ever produced. To date Mr. Eggleston, his son and the Trust have not responded to Mr. Sobel's suit.

To read an interview of Mr. Sobel by Photo District News (PDN) click here.

The New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law states that sellers must be clear about edition size and that they must state how many multiples are already in existence. There is no mention of works to be made in the future.

Fourteen states across the country ... Arkansas, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New York, Oregon, South Carolina and Wisconsin ... all enacted print disclosure laws to protect consumers of limited edition graphic and photographic prints. In these laws, the sellers of prints are required to provide buyers with documentation that the artworks they had purchased are part of a limited edition, the number of copies in the edition and that no other editions of the same images exist. Important exceptions, however, are made for earlier limited editions that are of different sizes (a 8" x 10" photograph produced in a 4" x 5" format), different production techniques (a gelatin silver print produced as a platinum print or a photogravure) or different numbering.  

There is going to be a lot of opinions written about this specific case. Since the works that Mr. Sobel owns are vintage/original dye transfer prints; in my opinion, there value has been increased by the mere interest, dollar amount of the Christie's sale and demand. According to the art adviser, Allan Schwartzman: "As the market expands, value often does, too."  No doubt, the market for Eggleston's work will be on the move ... in which direction is anyone's guess.

Thank You Christie's & William Eggleston!

Among photographers, art dealers and collectors there have always been some underlying question as to the legitimacy of digital prints vs the hand-pulled print made in the traditional darkroom. I have adamantly been a proponent of digital print-making and the editioning of digital prints. If you would like to read more of my comments on print editions, scroll down on this Blog to "Limited Edition Prints."

 While digital print-making has been around for almost 20 years, thanks to a recent sale (March 12, 2012) of William Eggleston's classic 1973 image of a child's tricycle at Christie's in New York, the digital print, in my opinion, has finally been legitimized ... yes!

 The 44" x 60" digital pigment print sold for $578,500. This was more than twice the previous record for an Eggleston print. The print was printed in an edition of 2 ... with a caveat that the 2nd print would not be sold for 3 years! Now that's a limited edition! Prior to the production of these particular digital prints, Eggleston's prints have been of the dye-transfer process ... a laborious and complex process known for it's clarity, color saturation and archivability.

Untitled, 1973 by William Eggleston

According to Ctein, a master dye-transfer print maker, "they are simply without peer." Dye-transfers today are made by only a handful of individuals. Due to the rarity of available materials and the complexity of the process, they are VERY expensive! Kodak no longer manufacturers the film material used in the dye-transfer process.  What materials were available have been purchased and stockpiled. It is my guess that in a very short period of time this process will be gone forever. 

According to an article in PDN (Photo District News), the Eggleston print auction at Christie's was a benefit for the Eggleston Artistic Trust. The article also references Joshua Holdeman, International Director of Christie's photography department, who states that "the sale was to establish a new market for Eggleston's photography in the contemporary art world." "Eggleston has been kind of stuck in the old school world of the photography collectors for a long time, whose primary concerns are about process, print type, print date, etcetera," says Holdeman. This is a "huge deal," for photography collectors, Holdeman says. "For contemporary art collectors it's much more about the object itself - they couldn't care if it's a dye-transfer or a pigment print or whatever, as long as the object itself is totally amazing, that's what they care about."

This is not only a big deal for collectors, it is also a VERY BIG DEAL for photographers and art dealers alike. Thank you Christie's and thank you Mr. Eggleston for finally giving legitimacy to the digital print.