Why not one of one?

<blockquote>

<p>If the photographer were fortunate enough to become "known" wouldn't that one original print have a value far beyond that of #15?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only to the entity currently owning the print if they wish to sell it. The question to ask yourself, is what's more important - the aesthetic value or market value? The reason the Mona Lisa or other works of art are valuable is not just because there is only one, but the aesthetic value associated with the work and artist. </p>

<p>Today's collector's market is fickle at best, and this year's top price getter doesn't guarantee that the same objet d'art sold next year or in 10 years will bring the same price. This is especially true of photographs because you would need to have a traceable, provable, provinance that documents the existence of only one - and more importantly - guarantees there will be only one. </p>

<p>For a short time, Ansel Adams used a postal punch to cancel negatives after printing an edition of an image. He quit doing that because it didn't alter the price he could get for the photographs. Joel Witkin makes a specific numbered edition of prints. The amount is worked out between Joel and his galleries and is generally about 25 to 50 prints depending upon the image or series. The reason he limits the edition is he usually does a lot of hand work as part of the printing process and once he has the process established he wants to make the prints as an edition because recreating the process at a later date would be difficult in matching the previous prints. </p>

<p>Once he is done printing the image, the negative goes to the museum housing his archive which guarantees the provinance. The edtion number, printing dates, galleries through which the image was sold, etc. are all logged as part of the archive, and if he asked for the negative back, that would be documented by the museum curatorial staff. </p>

<p>The only thing that is an unknown with Joel is the number of "gift prints" that he may have made of a specific image as he does not document those prints. I have a friend who made custom equipment for Joel for a number of years and Joel would give him a gift print in return for the work. However, Joel is very careful to not make the gift print the same size as the edition print, and the gift print is signed on the back (not front) and labeled as a gift print. The gift prints are still collectible, but bring about 1/2 the price of the edition print - even though there are fewer gift prints than edition prints.</p>

<p>MF's OT addressed "value" ... attempted to distinguish "art" from "commerce" yet "valued" both specifically as commerce, by price. $$="value." That's not an unusual value system, just ask your congressman. </p>

<p>Q: What was the value of Ansel Adams? A: By the pound or by the hour?</p>

<p>Witkin and Adams originals will certainly increase in <em>price</em> over time (though Adams has seen extreme ups and downs with inflation and deflation). I doubt they'll increase in <em>value.</em> Equally compelling photographers will regularly emerge. </p>

<p>MF: "If the photographer were fortunate enough to become "known" wouldn't that one original print have a value far beyond that of #15?" <strong>Price, maybe...value, no.</strong></p>

<p>Why not indeed? If one of one is what the photographer truly wants...</p>

<p>There is definitely a difference in value (which is likely reflected in price) between one print and many. The question is value to whom?</p>

<p>To the artist/photographer, there may be more value in having one unique creation. On the other hand he may get more satisfaction from the creation of a mass good. So from the creator's point of view, value is a subjective matter - only to be judged againt their explicit or implicit objective in creating the photograph.</p>

<p>To the consumer/buyer/viewer/critic - value consists of a variety of factors - but assuming that the core aesthetics are the same across various reproductions (not a given) there is still no necessary correlation between value and "scarcity". As an example, one could argue that commercial photos are more valuable when there are many of them reproduced. So the "negative" may well be more valuable if a lot of copies of it actually exist.</p>

<p>Therefore, have to disagree with JK's "<strong>Price, maybe...value, no."</strong> comment. More like "Price maybe... value maybe". All depends on the creator's objectives and the type of content.</p>

<p><em>" The question is value to whom?" </em>- AV</p>

<p>That would be a good response to a different original question (OT).</p>

<p>But for this thread, Michael Ferron specifically defined value in market terms (selling price), emphasizing that price-centric value system by confining the discussion to "known" (ie sell-able) photographers.</p>

<p>Lithographers and many "art" photographers have long defined value in terms of rarity and hoped-for selling price by specifying print number within edition, as in #15 of 100.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael-</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with limiting your print run. I am of the mind that the lower the numbers, the more valueable an image is. As a matter of fact- I think it goes to the very nature of photography- something ephemeral- something not repeated. Things are changing in the gallery world- this is a more common approach than you might think and photographers are lowering there series #'s to very limited, say less than 10 prints. Some of my work, I would like to think, is best suited to one, unique print. Not only do I think it is very much in line with photography's existential fabric, but scarecity does tend to drive prices upward. Let's put it this way- if you can make $100,000 from selling 100 prints, what do you price 1 unique print at?<br>

I'm sure its hard though- to keep from going the other route- or having people make prints posthumously...</p>

<p>Thanks Martin. I never meant to imply there was a right or wrong when it comes to how many prints one should or shouldn't make. As a struggling, self-taught and fussy dark room printer I'm quite thrilled to have things come together and produce a fine print.</p>

<p>After test strips it usually takes me 3 or 4 attempts minimum to achieve optimum results. For me anything after that would become boring and repetitious. I'd rather stop and be happy with one unique piece. I limit my conversation to wet printing on this topic because once a print is dialed in digitally one needs to no more than to say "OK" to print a near unlimited amount of perfect duplicates though I don't deny digital printers (me included) the right to a one off print as well. As a an enthusiastic amateur I have little hope of ever being "known" or ever having my prints worth more than $100 tops LOL. (but then again you never know)</p>