Digital BW, The Print

Mark, you wrote:

> Could you describe more in detail how your unlimited edition
> business model might work?

A bit early for that but I'll try. I got the idea from this list as some
seem to use it in the USA.

> I very much might be wrong, but I'd think if any photographer
> wanted to ever be affiliated with a commercial gallery, he'd have
> to limit the edition. I just couldn't see any gallery owner going
> along with the unlimited edition concept. But maybe I'm missing
> something from your vision that might make it possible.

It will be nearly impossible to get that working with galleries, maybe
possible with one gallery that would do the total sale of that image.  I
don't think it is wise to make the sale of an image dependent on one gallery
but opinions may differ. It will be impossible to fit in the normal dealing
between galleries, you get twenty Corneille prints for distribution if I may
sell those 5 rare Kurt Hutton prints etc.

> I agree with everyone, that photography, especially digital
> printmaking of photography, goes so well with an unlimited
> edition viewpoint; even a "print on demand" viewpoint. But
> dealing with human perception, and long-held gallery mindsets,
> is a whole other matter.

It is a refreshing idea on the other hand. I remember some of the sixties
attempts by artists over here to break that gallery circuit / art mindset.
Aat Veldhoen sold prints made on offset presses for very low prices in
unlimited quantities. He called them rotaprints. He certainly got his name
mentioned everywhere without any money lost in the project. Provo period of
course. Meanwhile he returned to the traditional marketing methods.

> I'd think that the unlimited edition method would work fine if the
> artist was selling direct, ie. over the web, through their own
> studio. No problem there. But to then interact with galleries,
> recommending open editions, seems like a tough nut.

Right that will be the best way to do it. No gallery involved or just the
gallery you already have a contract with.

Some brainstorming in solitude:

Price setting could be based on what the experience is on selling editions:
time that it takes to sell an edition, average price during that period etc.
Lowest price to start with should at least cover print costs in a print on
demand process. Pricing per square inch, escalating sum fixed and per square
inch. Minimum and maximum sizes fixed or certain sizes fixed. Paper, canvas
qualities specified.

Prints numbered on the front. Escalating price paid for the image at the
back, price paid for the size and media next to that. (Is it better to have
the pricing on the front in the US ? ;-) Invoice doubles as a CA. And the
taxman will like the artist's bookkeeping for the first time.

The mechanism of marketing and distribution has some aspects of a
chainletter. That isn't a positive imago but the usual art business isn't
any better. Stock prices in a bull market are alike. The image has its own
quality in the first place, if the buyer thinks of making money he should
know the risks. At least the buyer will have a nice image on the wall.
Integrity of the artist or gallery is a must like in any other concept.

Here we have a problem with VAT tax. Art editions usually go with a 6% VAT,
normal photography, printing will be 18% VAT. The categories are quite
arbitrary and are not free from irregularities so it has to be seen what can
be asked. A 12% higher price isn't working for a normal customer or an
institute. For companies VAT isn't an issue. But no artist will like the
idea that he has to pay the extra 12 % VAT (that he never received) at the
end of the year when the taxman says the product doesn't fit the right
category.
A good accountant should make that clear.

Ernst