Digital BW, The Print

Hi Darren, 

Not!  The whole idea of an edition is that it's limited; a fixed number of prints 
and that is it, as Mark said.  He is only suggesting that you stage the printing 
of the edition.   You can't later create a whole new edition of the same image 
and have any integrity at all.  This seems basic.  

The Jul-Aug 2001 issue of LensWork contains a long critique of editions, 
roughly saying it is nothing but a marketing ploy to inflate the cost of your 
work.   I, however, like the edition idea and use it.  

Another entirely different way of doing this is the one used by the very 
successful Christopher Burkett, an ilfochrome printer of some renown who 
starts with 8x10 transparencies and has work in many very fine galleries 
(www.christopherburkett.com).  He doesn't use editions.  However, with each 
increment of print sales of an image the price goes up.  The work is also 
numbered, but in an "UNlimited edition."  His initial large prints go for under 
$1000, but some of his most popular images have sold enough to now sell for 
over $3000.  This method insures that your work gains value (assuming it 
sells) over time.  

I have chosen to do both.  Use a rather large limited-edition size of 250 and 
raise the price progressively as the edition sells (dream on Tom).  The very 
last print goes for $500,000. (ha!)

I suspect that most buyers are much more  concerned with the look and 
quality of your work - the actual image - than with the business of editions.  
Unless of course you are selling for many thousands of dollars to investment 
collectors and are in the upper end of the art world - where, hmmm, actually, 
the notion of editions probably doesn't matter there either.  Now to be really 
cynical about all this, I suppose there are success stories of prints on toilet 
paper by artists who know all the right people, talk articulate post-modern 
art-speak, are very original or at least are doing slightly different work in a 
supposedly "original", in vogue, genre and who are wildly successful.   But 
perhaps these are monotypes.   Apologies.  I really shouldn't rant.  There is 
just so much crap that poses (and sells itself) as expensive art; mixed in with 
the stuff that takes your breath away.  I still remember standing in tears 
before a large inexplicable Motherwell painting at MOMA in 1971, just before 
going into the print room and getting to actually handle and look at many 
dozens or original Weston and Strand prints.   But what do I know anyway?
Not very damn much!


Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com 


> This editions idea matches my current thinking. It means you can keep
> printing popular images, but it also means that the people who buy in early
> retain the prestige of owning a print from the first edition. Similarly, the
> most valuable collectible books are usually copies from the first edition.
>  
> Darren.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> Steve/Rick/Anyone:
> 
> What about this -- what if you thought about an Edition in the 
> same way that a publisher/author thinks about a book? What if 
> you had a "first printing", and then if the demand was there for 
> more copies prints, then you could decide to invest in a "second 
> printing"?
> 
> You (anyone) could have a "first run" of say, ten prints. You'd run 
> all of those ten prints at the same time. That would be the "first 
> run of the edition". The CofA would note this, that the first run 
> would contain ten prints, and if that sold out, you'd then authorize 
> a second run of another ten prints. And so on and so forth until 
> you reached the total limit on the Edition of say, thirty prints. At 
> that time, the artist would "retire" the image, and would 
> guarantee that no more prints would be made of it IN ANY SIZE, 
> in any other form, in any other color.
> 
> In this approach, the buyer would be "hedging a bet" in a sense, 
> that he would own one out of possibly only ten prints. Yet he 
> would also be made fully aware at the time of purchase that 
> there was a potential that the full edition of thirty would be run at 
> some time, whether that was three years, or thirty years. 
> 
> In addition, the upside for the photographer is that he would not 
> be forced to invest hundreds of extra dollars for paper and ink, all 
> on the front end. This method seems like a good balance 
> between "print on demand" (could there BE a nastier term?), and 
> running the entire edition all at once.
> 
> It seems from several responses on this list today that you guys 
> think I'm trying to restrict your income by injecting these ideas, 
> when, in a sense, I feel like I'm opening up opportunities in the 
> long haul for your income to go up. In that, the overall perception 
> of your business would be strengthened. Right now, I'd say that 
> there are many savvy buyers/investors out there who know how 
> the game is played -- ie, there's always that chance that they'll 
> pay top dollar for a print, under the guise of a limited edition, only 
> to be informed later that a whole NEW edition has been 
> introduced "in a new color", or "in a new size". Who on this list 
> can look me in the eye and tell me that's not a questionable 
> business practice? (Whether it's done every day is no 
> justification, either).
> 
> Hell, given this behavior, there's no wonder that the prices are 
> staying low; photographers seem to be their worst enemies.
> 
> -----
> 
> I am asking ALL of these questions under the heading of: "I don't 
> know and I'm trying to learn", so please read them with that in 
> mind. I'm a commercial hack, and all this art-talk is new to me. 
> And, as you can see from my writing, no words are over three 
> syllables, so keep your responses simple.
> 
> Thanks very much,
> 
> MT, http://marktucker.com/ <http://marktucker.com/> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]