Digital BW, The Print

Julian Thomas wrote:

> I've just received two copies of Lenswork - issues no 36 and 37. If no one
> has seen this magazine it is a must. it is very well written, aiming at an
> intelligent audience (one issue even has an article by Tolstoy!) with
> well-presented photography - almost like an academic journal but more
> readable!
> I ordered these two issues because of two articles - one by Brooks Jensen
> on editioning, and one by John Wimberley on 'dealing with dealers'. Some of
> you know that I had an unpleasant expereince at a Gallery where I was told
> that I could only make 4 copies of an editioned print 'for it to be art',
> and that I had to 'make it big'.
> Brooks makes the valid point that editioning is solely a marketing ploy and
> that it is better to sell more prints at a lower price than artificially
> limit the sale to an arbitrary number of prints.
> John tells a number of horror stories and then advocates breaking the
> dealer's monopoly by photographers contacting collectors directly.
> Now this last point, to me, is the crux of the problem, if editioning only
> benefits dealers, then in order for the photographer top benefit, one needs
> to sell directly to collectors. But HOW?? Has anyone any thought on this?
> Some people use the internet http://www.davebeckerman.com/ for example.
> Anyone else do this?
>
> Julian

Julian,
I should start by saying that I have not read the articles you mentioned, but am commenting just on your post.

In my opinion, this concept of cutting out the 'middleman', (the photo dealer, or gallery owner) is a little
short sided and unfair.  Think about it, (and I am talking *only* about reputable dealers), selling art is a
*business*, it has *nothing* to do with art, the quality of said art, or making art...it is commerce.  Do not
confuse art and commerce!  (I know I keep on harping back to that line, but is *SO* important!)

Yes dealers get 50%, but if they do their jobs properly, they deserve it, the same as any retailer.  They have
overhead and need to invest time and money in your work, in order to sell it.  Most times, in the beginning, a
dealer cannot get a lot of money for an emerging artist's work, they need to work their connections and
collectors to 'brand' you, in the same way Epson has branded themselves as a company that makes good inkjet
printers.  If you turn around and go to the collectors that have already bought your images (through a
dealer), then you are stealing the dealers hard, honest work.  Also, collectors go to dealers because they
trust the dealer's taste, opinions, and ability to find new talent.

You ask how to get to the collectors?  That *is* the big question...And that is where the galleries and
dealers come in.  It is *their* job to find those people..  They have galleries, which they advertise and
promote, in order to get collectors interested enough to come in.  They do press releases, maintain and send
out mailing lists, schmooze with art critics etc.  Yes, we might be able to do that part ourselves, but then
it takes away from the time we want to use making art in the first place.  Some people enjoy it, some are
terrible at it.  The choice is yours, but still remember, do not confuse art and commerce.

Editioning:

If you recall, I posted that the whole modern concept behind editioning was purely a commerce/marketing
issue.  Originally, etchings were editioned because the etching plate literally wore out, and the earlier
prints were a higher quality.  There really was a finite number of prints that could be made from an etching
plate.  With modern steel plating techniques that is no longer true.

Yes editioning now is usually a marketing ploy.  I think it was Brett Weston's son, but it might have been a
Brett Weston sibling, who was (I don't know if he is still doing this) making one print from his 8x10
negative, and then dry mounting the neg. to the back of the print.  I guess to him it was the initial
'concept' that was important, and he never wanted to revisit those thoughts...I find that limiting.

Ansel Adams did at least one 'portfolio' in the 60's where, after printing the initial portfolio edition,
(which might have been as high as 100) he put the negatives through a Pitney Bowes 'cancellation machine' (it
punches holes through them) so that he could never make any more prints.  It was a marketing ploy that Ansel
lived to regret, and said so.  Years later, he felt he could have done more with the images, but couldn't
because he had destroyed the negatives...So much for the initial 'previsualization' (and this is from the
originator and master of the concept).

You have to decide if you want the initial money for limiting the print run, or you want the freedom over the
long haul to be able to revisit those images.  Again, while I know that dealers *claim* that they need to get
the photographers to limit the editions to get 'prices', history has shown us that it is just not true.
Edward Weston's 'Pepper #40' has the most copies in circulation, and still goes for the most at auction.  It
is sort of a 'catch 22'...If you are famous, it's ok, if you're unknown, you *must* follow the rules...Just
like with print quality or originality.  Michael Stipe of REM can get away with publishing books of photos
that look exactly like student work, but students could never get the same deal....Go back to the 5 rules of
success.  ;- )

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]