Digital BW, The Print

Steve/Rick/Anyone:

What about this -- what if you thought about an Edition in the 
same way that a publisher/author thinks about a book? What if 
you had a "first printing", and then if the demand was there for 
more copies prints, then you could decide to invest in a "second 
printing"?

You (anyone) could have a "first run" of say, ten prints. You'd run 
all of those ten prints at the same time. That would be the "first 
run of the edition". The CofA would note this, that the first run 
would contain ten prints, and if that sold out, you'd then authorize 
a second run of another ten prints. And so on and so forth until 
you reached the total limit on the Edition of say, thirty prints. At 
that time, the artist would "retire" the image, and would 
guarantee that no more prints would be made of it IN ANY SIZE, 
in any other form, in any other color.

In this approach, the buyer would be "hedging a bet" in a sense, 
that he would own one out of possibly only ten prints. Yet he 
would also be made fully aware at the time of purchase that 
there was a potential that the full edition of thirty would be run at 
some time, whether that was three years, or thirty years. 

In addition, the upside for the photographer is that he would not 
be forced to invest hundreds of extra dollars for paper and ink, all 
on the front end. This method seems like a good balance 
between "print on demand" (could there BE a nastier term?), and 
running the entire edition all at once.

It seems from several responses on this list today that you guys 
think I'm trying to restrict your income by injecting these ideas, 
when, in a sense, I feel like I'm opening up opportunities in the 
long haul for your income to go up. In that, the overall perception 
of your business would be strengthened. Right now, I'd say that 
there are many savvy buyers/investors out there who know how 
the game is played -- ie, there's always that chance that they'll 
pay top dollar for a print, under the guise of a limited edition, only 
to be informed later that a whole NEW edition has been 
introduced "in a new color", or "in a new size". Who on this list 
can look me in the eye and tell me that's not a questionable 
business practice? (Whether it's done every day is no 
justification, either).

Hell, given this behavior, there's no wonder that the prices are 
staying low; photographers seem to be their worst enemies.

-----

I am asking ALL of these questions under the heading of: "I don't 
know and I'm trying to learn", so please read them with that in 
mind. I'm a commercial hack, and all this art-talk is new to me. 
And, as you can see from my writing, no words are over three 
syllables, so keep your responses simple.

Thanks very much,

MT, http://marktucker.com/

I don't think this makes sense from the position of the buyer. If they
have the good taste to be an "early investor" in an image that becomes
popular they wind up getting punished as the value of their investment
is diluted by the appearance of additional prints on the market. If they
buy a stinker, the relative scarcity of the print doesn't help the value
because the image sucks and no one wants to buy it.

And how would you number them? Would the first print be 1/10 or 1/30?

That being said, I have at least once seen in an auction catalog "number
5 of an edition of 50 of which 30 were printed". I think that's because
the artist died though.

-Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Tucker [mailto:mark@...] 

You (anyone) could have a "first run" of say, ten prints. You'd run 
all of those ten prints at the same time. That would be the "first 
run of the edition". The CofA would note this, that the first run 
would contain ten prints, and if that sold out, you'd then authorize 
a second run of another ten prints. And so on and so forth until 
you reached the total limit on the Edition of say, thirty prints. At 
that time, the artist would "retire" the image, and would 
guarantee that no more prints would be made of it IN ANY SIZE, 
in any other form, in any other color.

In this approach, the buyer would be "hedging a bet" in a sense, 
that he would own one out of possibly only ten prints. Yet he 
would also be made fully aware at the time of purchase that 
there was a potential that the full edition of thirty would be run at 
some time, whether that was three years, or thirty years.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> wrote:
> Steve/Rick/Anyone:
> 
> What about this --

Mark, here's my theory, for what it's worth. Steve is well aware of
it. You can't take on the burden of "educating the public", you have
work to do. Considering their tendencies during elections, who wants
to try anyway? It all comes down to your name. If they haven't heard
of you they're looking for a reason not to buy. Is it push button? Is
it archival? Oh dear.
If it's a Raushenburg in a gigantic edition and it's not archival, and
it'll look good over the couch they'll buy it no matter what.
I fill out an edition on demand. Papers change, inks change, I change.
Same in the darkroom, masters printed to order even if editioned.
Rarely identical.
The technology changes rapidly. If a better printer or ink or paper or
technology comes along I'm not keeping an old setup over in the corner
just to make sure I can match a previous print. If someone places an
order (uh huh), they'll get what I make for them. I'm the artist, I
decide. I probably spent hours and hours on qualities they don't see
anyway. I'm the one who has to feel satisfied with it and my years of
learning qualify me to make those decisions. No one else. I mean "I"
in the sense of whoever the artist may be, err something. They don't
like the better prints I make now, they don't have to buy. Hell they
probably have shoes that cost more, the hand wringing makes me pissy.
I may switch to digital negs and go back to platinum, so what? I set
an edition size that I'll probably never reach by the end of in my
life, 50, beyond that I won't want to deal with it any more anyway. By
the way, for the BS scarcity issue, that's small compared to many very
famous print artists who use blueberry jam for ink and command huge
prices. No one asks them these questions.
Any print I make with any technology is part of the 50, period. They
can count on that.
Do what ever you want, what makes sense to you and has integrity,
You'll never please them all. Just yourself.
Tyler

>>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Jason DeFontes" 
<jason@d...> wrote:
> That being said, I have at least once seen in an auction catalog 
"number
> 5 of an edition of 50 of which 30 were printed". I think that's 
because
> the artist died though.

------------

Jason,

I hate to break it to you, dear boy, but that artist did not die. He's 
alive and well, and at this very moment, he's mixing another 
round of margueritas for himself, Barry White, Charo, and Jeb 
Bush's daughter. He's just kicked off this flipflops, kicked back in 
his hammock, and the doorbell just rang with a huge Sushi 
order delivery.

You, my dearest, are yet another trusting individual who got 
swept up in the illusionary net of:

The Artist Protection Program!
http://www.artistprotection.com

Here's a snippet from their site:

"Modeled after the FBI's Witness Protection Program, the APBP 
removes an artist from the Contemporary Art scene. The artist is 
then relocated to a new city or country, and provided with a new 
identity. The APBP then sells the artists' work, providing a lifetime 
of financial freedom!"

Make sure you research the entire site, because there's much to 
learn! I'm sure Keith Haring is living over on the next island...

-MT