Digital BW, The Print

I feel that limited edition prints are for those collectors that 
can't afford the price of an original. To get art into the hands of 
the masses if you will. If you were to buy an honestly priced 
original and the artist is able to make a living at the same time, a 
$50.00 per hour price on the piece would be fair. Now couple that 
with how may pieces are sold for every ten that are produced. Then 
the artist has to charge for the hours on the pieces that aren't 
sold. So now one has to charge say $200.00 per hour to cover the 
time used on the no sales. If the artist spends 40 hours on a 
typical piece, then the selling price would be $8000.00 and with the 
gallery 40% added, then the piece would cost $12,800.00. I don't 
sell too many $12,000.00 pieces, but I sell a heck of a lot of 
prints for $300.00. My brother the doctor says I'm prostituting my 
art, and I'll point out to him that he takes money from sick people.




Greg Lockrey

Wealth is a state of mind.
Money is just a tool.
Happiness is pedaling + 25 mph on a smooth road.

http://pages.prodigy.net/glockrey






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "hill14701" 
<hill14701@y...> wrote:
> 
> Limited editions in any number are a rational reason why 
photography is the bastard child 
> of the artworld.  My local college gallery hosts an annual student 
show, and the director 
> also purchases a small number of works for the permanent 
collection.  His one 
> comment is that he pays less for photography, as it is infinately 
reproducable (and 
> therefore not unique).  Unfortunately, this also means that he 
purchases cruddy paintings 
> for 4X the price of one truly beautiful BW print.
> 
> Beyond that one example, what I find hysterical are printmakers 
(or so-called 
> photographers, loosely used) who do the tiered pricing scheme.  It 
brings all the joy and 
> excitement of being an Amway Distributer into the art community.  
Seriously though, 
> where do you see yourself in five years?
> 
> Maybe I am alone, but I want my work to remain singular and 
unique.  When I am satisfied 
> with a final print, darkroom or inkjet, I destroy the negative or 
delete the associated files.  
> I understand Brett Weston did this with a number of his images 
(ironed the negative to the 
> back of the print), as well as holding a negative burning ceremony 
not wanting anyone 
> else to print his negatives after his death.  That being said, I 
have participated in a few 
> print exchanges with members of this group (so I am not militant).
> 
> Inkjet printing has degraded all unique qualities of the fine 
print.  While the work can look 
> much better than a darkroom print, it has no value other than the 
materials it is printed on 
> and with.  Another member has put it much more eloquently, that it 
is only worth what 
> someone is willing to pay.  I refuse to pay more for a print 
because it is at the tail end of a 
> limited edition run, actually I would never buy a "limited 
edition" print.  Seriously, would 
> any of you either?  I understand the mechanics of the tiered 
pricing process, but I find it 
> distasteful.  Besides, why not go whole-hog and make snazzy 
posters, t-shirts, notecards, 
> mousepads, and select images on coffee mugs?  
> 
> don