Digital BW, The Print

> So you print and sell just one image and covenant that it is 1 of 1. 

Correct.  But like I stated, I have participated in a few print exchanges.

> That's fine if it pays the bills but the vast majority of 1 of 1 artists in
> history were poor and their pieces didn't attract significant value until
> after their death.  Depends on what you are after.  I don't know a single
> artist that doesn't want to feed his or her family.  

I'm not sure what being poor has to do with limited edition printing, or this discussion.  
My function of art is not sales but my passion for the creative outlet.  Sales are best left to 
salespeople.

> Either we would all price most of us out of the
> market - owning photography would, like the ownership of the great paintings
> even when they were new, become solely the domain of the extremely wealthy -
> or most photographers couldn't pay their bills and begrudgingly would go off
> to do something else.  

Are these issues; ownership, bills, and domains of the extremely wealthy?  I cannot believe 
that an artist would quit painting or sketching because their bills were not being met.

> The ability to produce multiple copies but limited by covenant helps us all - both the 
> person who would like to own and the person who would like to sell.

I disagree.  The medium is stigmatized by being reproducible, and we are able to present 
perfect and identical copies of the original.  As a "1/1" printer, those who print multiple 
perfect copies of their images degrade my work as it is also "reproducible photography". 

> Ah the elite "artiste"!  Each to their own.  Many can find a sensible middle
> ground that pays the bills (and allows them in today's economic world to
> live from their passion).

No, I'm not an elite or even an artiste; but the middle ground is not suitable for me.  If I 
need to pay bills, I will do so,  but not by diluting my work because more than one person 
finds it pleasing.

Don