Digital BW, The Print

I don't know, ask Mark, this whole thing was his stupid idea. :-)

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with the whole editioning thing, I was
just picking on the "multiple print runs, like book publishing" part of
his idea, specifically trying to make a point about the "investment"
perspective of the buyer, which was something he brought up in the
original post.

But since I've gotten myself in the middle of the conversation, I
suppose I should give my opinion. First, remember that I a) am a
painter, and b) have never sold, or tried to sell, any of my work (yet).
So my opinions aren't coming from the same place as someone who is
trying to make a living as a photographer. But I am an artist, and a
modest collector, and I try to keep up with what's going on in the art
market.

I don't think the idea of absolute identical consistency in an edition
is necessarily that important. There are plenty of artists whose
editions include considerable hand work which is never going to be
identical from print to print. Jim Dine comes to mind, and Judy Pfaff
(who has a kick-ass show at David Adamson in DC right now). On the other
hand, I don't think it makes sense for an edition to include prints that
vary dramatically in say size, or sepia vs. neutral as others have
suggested. It simply doesn't make sense for those prints to be
considered part of the edition; if they are not equivalent to the rest
of the prints in the edition then they can't be valued the same way, so
what's the point? But if you don't print the entire edition at once, I
don't think it's a huge deal, as long as you honor the contract that you
started when you numbered that first print 1 of X.

Personally however, I agree with Mark's sentiment about artistic
development. When I make a print, I print a small edition (like a
handful, or even one), then I put it away and put that work behind me.
I'm much more interested in the next thing I'm going to make than in
falling back on past successes. If I didn't make a big enough edition
for a "winner", well, then I'll just have to be content with the press
I'll get when the auction market goes nuts for them. ;-)

I don't have a problem with open editions, though it's not something I
think I would do myself. They serve a certain segment of the market, and
I respect the fact that a number of photographers make their livings
from them. As a buyer, I would have no problem spending up to a few
hundred dollars on an open edition print. (In fact, I've got my eye on
the work of a few fellow list members.) But when it comes to spending
serious money, I really want to know that after I buy my print the
artist isn't going to turn around and get a fleet of 7600s and start
selling prints on QVC for $69.95. A limited edition at least defines the
intended number of examples that will be on the market, and whether or
not an artist honors that defines their integrity.

-Jason


-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...] 

Jason,

If ever I get to the point where I can get a thousand dollars for my
prints, I don't know what I'd do.  To get that thousand, a gallery would
have to charge $1600. And then there's the framing and glass charges. 
Since I never will have to worry about that, I don't now worry about it!
:).

And how many of us can afford to run off 50 images on large paper for an
edition?
Not me!! And what do you do with all the ones that don't sell?

Jerry