New to the Collection (MAYBE): Beate Gutschow

For quite some time now I've been browsing different internet sources trying to locate prints to add to my collection. A while ago I found a Beate Gutschow photograph that grabbed my eye and kept it over several months. I finally decided to purchase the print from the Museum of Contemporary Photography in Chicago. The have a seemingly great program where photographers produce an edition of small prints that the MOCP can sell for $300 and raise funds. The editions range from 30-70. The Gutschow print in question is in an edition of 50. Here's a bit about Gutschow's work and an image of it:

Beate Gütschow's panoramic landscapes are digital assemblages of details from the artist's archive of images of trees, fields, knolls, clouds, people, and shadows. The interface between separate elements is invisible and seamless, however, the colors are eerily saturated and the use of light and shadow often contradictory. Consciously drawing on the history of landscape painting to create her tableaux, Gütschow's photographs resemble the pastoral scenes painted by artists such as Claude Lorrain, John Constable, and Nicolas Poussin.

The print arrived on Wednesday and to my astonishment it was packaged very poorly. Or at least I think so... you be the judge. The matted print measures 20" x 24". The actual image is about 12" x 19". The print was secured between two pieces of regular cardboard a bit bigger than the mat. It was secured well to one pice of cardboard then the other piece of cardboard was folded over it. The "package" was "sealed" using packing tape to cover the four edges. And that is it. The address and such was written in orange magic marker directly on the cardboard.

I was extremely worried when I saw that this was how my $300 print was shipped (shipping cost another $15). But I assumed that they must do this all the time so despite my concerns it must work. Well, I began the process of opening the package when I got to the print my fears came true. In the middle of the print was a crescent-shaped dent in the print measuring about 3" long. I knew immediately that I couldn't frame or display the print.

I have since emailed the MOCP detailing the problem and asking from resolution. It's been a day and I have not heard back yet. No big deal... it is a holiday. I will give them some time to make things right.

Here's my complaint. For my $20 prints that measure 8.5" x 11", I do some serious, time-consuming packing. I first wrap the print in wax paper. I then mount the print on a piece of cardboard and put another piece in front of it. I tape these piece together. Although this is where the MOCP stopped, I continue by putting padding around the print and then put that in a sturdy box. The box is then sealed. It takes quite a bit of time to do all that but to me it is worth it if the print arrives to the buyer in perfect condition. I worry until I hear of a successful delivery.

Maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe not. Maybe my expectations were too high. But let this serve as a warning to those who buy artwork over the internet.

Here's pictures that try to capture the damage. You can see the dent in the center of the print (circled):

What do you think? Am I right to be a bit miffed about this?

Comments

[Lenny]

Was it insured?

If so put a claim.... the USPS will want a description of the packing... if they think it was their fault, they'll pay $300 - if not they'll said it was poorly packed - in which case then you have a case against the museum.

We ship 200-300 pieces of art a year - always OVERPACK!
A flat photo is the easiest thing to pack - but you need lots of layers of corrugated strong cardboard + loads of signs that say DO NO LAY FLAT, plus USPS is the only shipper that will insure artwork easily...

[Ed Zerne]

Don't wrap prints in wax paper - it will offset... use glycine paper

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hey Ed,

Where does one buy "glycine paper?" I've never heard of it.

JT

[christine]

glassine

http://www.artpaper.com/papers/glassine.html

It's has the transuscency of waxed paper (perhaps where the mix up came from? ) but is acid free and more importantly, wax free.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Where does a guy buy this so-called glassine paper locally?

[Scott]

Try Light Impressions. It's mail order. The website is www.lightimpressionsdirect.com

[roberta fallon]

yes, glassine is great. although i don't know that it's more archival than wax paper...is it? those people at MOCP should be ashamed. I picked up a print by Sarah McEneaney (worth much more now but at the time about the same as your photograph) and it was triple wrapped very nicely and included some bubble wrap if i recall.

[Gabriel]

This is not a print.....why didn't you buy a real print from a Gallery like Danziger projects????????

[J.T. Kirkland]

I won't even waste time responding to the "not a real print" comment. That's just ridiculous on so many levels. But I will provide some numbers:

Size: 20" x 31.5"
Edition: 10
Price: $3,500

Size: 12" x 19"
Edition: 50
Price: $300

I'll go with the $300 print and at the same time feel good that I'm helping fund projects at the Museum of Contemporary Photography instead of lining the pockets of some New York gallerist.

And because I can't resist... clearly the market feels that these are "prints": http://chromogenia.typepad.com/artatlanta/2005/06/bottom_feeding_.html

[J. Karl Bogartte]

There may be some bias about shipping prints flat, but it makes much more sense to ship in a cardboard roll, if these prints are not framed. This offers more protection...

But, in your case, I suspect the 'ding' in your print was made when the print came off the printer. This can easily occur even if one is careful, but usually more of a problem with larger sized prints. It's the nature of the paper.