Digital BW, The Print

Harvey,
I agree totally with your post on editioning. Nothibng to add!

The dealer thing is tricky - dealers/ galleries can only take on a limited
number of photographers. So there are always people - like me - spending a
small fortune on portfolios, building up images. It would be really nice to
be able to increase sales without relying on the whim of a third party.
Maybe cooperatives, web sites, are a way forward?? BTW I'm crap at the
commerce side, I have no interest in it. It feels like I've spent the last 2
months doing nothing else.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "SKID Photography" <skid@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Lenswork issues


> 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]
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>