Chronicler of NYC art scene can't give away his collection

Actually he should just donate to the Library of Congress but I'm not sure they'd want to go though it either. I think the real problem is the artwork had value, photographs of the artwork, not so much.

When I was spring-cleaning once, my cousin reminded me that that all the stuff we've accumulated will all eventually get burnt up.

2 Peter 3:10-11 in the Bible states: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives."

In other words, he wants the government to pay his collection through a big Tax deduction, while he can simply give them to someone like me. It all depends how much he wants to deduct. I will not be surprised non-profit organizations are reluctant in participating such scheme, if the deduction is a big number .

Can I have them? I live in NYC.

Incredibly sad that there isn't some organization that would want these images. They need to be saved, preserved, gone through, and edited. We're all like Dee, we don't make notes on our slides either. I have thousands I've shot over the years, tens of thousands of slides and negatives, and very few have notes. So what? Dee isn't a bad guy, he was a businessman and a photographer. The images he has are extras, and who knew? Suddenly they are important. But not important enough I guess. Hope someone will come and save them. Hey Mr. Dee! Put them up on eBay!! Start bidding at 99 cents and mark it "Local Pickup Only"

Sadly, what we as photographers consider valuable, the rest of the world does not. He put in the effort to capture and save images of other artist's work, now no one seems to find his efforts relevant.

On a similar note, even original art is rarely appreciated today. I truly believe this is a reflection of the new generation. People today care little for art or history; they value more what technology can do to impress or entertain them. There is little, if any, soul in this new generation.

I guess scanning them and then archiving the scans might be a good idea. There are plenty of films (still and moving picture) that have deteriorated badly and should have been backed up to a digital file.

very interesting article, especially for me.
I've been photographing artworks professionally since early 90s (first assisting, then on my own) - and I have an expansive collection of 4x5 and 8x10 chromes of some pretty important works.
However, copywork is copywork and I am sure if I tried to market these images I would face a major wrath from art community, and it's likely to be a career-ending move, aside of getting sued for copyright breach.

I wonder what Dr.Dee is thinking about legal framework for selling this collection.

I'll take them.

"'If they [the client] ordered 10 slides, I’d shoot 12. It was cheaper to shoot extras than to go back and reshoot."

If I understand this correctly, these are the leftovers of the photos that he took for his clients. Presumably, they got the best of the bunch. It also appears that he didn't catalog them in any way so there is no idea, unless you go visit, what the subjects are and how many of them are actually decent photos.

It's like someone having a hockey card collection where all of the popular and mint condition cards were sold off and the rest were thrown in a box.

Is it really worth the effort? After all, presumably the actual art pieces and the original photos provided to the clients still exist.