The truth about limited editions

Anyone concerned about limiting their photographic editions has probably not really

considered the the real reasons behind their motivations. Mainly greed. However, the artist

rarely reaps the benefits of greed. Check the article out at http://bermangraphics.com/

artshows/whatsizetheedition.htm and really think about the whole idea.

Slight correction to the URL: <a href="http://bermangraphics.com/artshows/whatsizetheedition.htm">http://bermangraphics.com/artshows/whatsizetheedition.htm</a>

<br>

<br>

When you were first talking about limitied editions I was thinking about limited edition cameras and such instead of prints...espicalily with the part about greed...ANYHOW. I don't really have much to say about this topic but this paragraph from the article does resonate with me:

<br>

<br>

<i>"There is only one reason to limit the number of photographs<br>

made from a negative and this is because<b>we all know that

<br>

artwork and photography are subject to the laws of economics,

<br>

the most important of which is supply and demand.</b>

<br>

An edition is limited so as to limit the supply

<br>

and push the price higher. There is no other reason to do it."</i>

"Greed" - sounds pretty preachy to me.

Maybe the starving artists are hungry; and need actual food; bought with this "greed"; ie actual cash.

I like his idea about just numbering the print, without limiting the edition, that makes good sense to me.

From my darkroom and printshop experience I'd call a honest and natural limitation good.

This would mean "1/67 '04" which would say I got 67 pleasant prints out of the box of paper of a discontinued brand, which I happened to have at home, until my developer was empty or whatever and I don't know if I ever like to print this negative again and I certainly wouldn't like to chain myself to the look I got out this year.

Agreeing with others: artificial limitations are bullshit. But damn, if you are an artist, behave as one and especially do what YOU like, but only IF you likle. If the audience wants your picture ask your manager to hire some labrat; surely your own work should be more valuable and rare. I'm fed up with limited editions of whatever offered as a extra rip off anywhere. But I see no faulty behavior in just documenting somebodys work.

because there is no degradation of the print with successive printings, unlike with etchings etc, doesn't it seem like an affectation?

Limiting an edition of prints is a device used by some artists or galleries to raise the price of their product. If collectors see that say a Michael Kenna edition is near selling out, they will pay a higher price for the print. The gallery and artist know that as an edition sells out the price on the secondary market (the already collected prints) is going to rise anyhow. Once Michael or any artist finishes producing that print, the price will raise anyway. Some artists continue to produce prints of an image no matter how many they have made and some stop making prints of images they made but no longer are interested in making further prints. Some cal it creative marketing and others understand that certain artists want to produce new work and leave the old behind them. Limiting obviously works for some artists. I would love to get certain images for my collection but the prices are so high or the image on the open market so rare, I can forget it. Try to find an Ansel Adams, "Trailer Park Children." Ain't nowhere, no how. After lkooking for years, there are none around. Lots of Ruth Bernhard images around right now. You'ld better hurry though. I hope she lives to be 110 but when she does leave us, you can forget being able to buy any of her more collected images.

I think this guy makes a pretty impressive argument. The "limited Edition" concept came

across my mind when I first hit the gallery circuit a few months ago. I didnt have enough

information to go either way. I was just grateful that anyone would want to hang my

prints in their home. I have yet to number any of the prints i've sold.

<i>Anyone concerned about limiting their photographic editions has probably not really considered the the real reasons behind their motivations.</i><P>

Why do you assume that they're self-deluded rather than savvy about marketing? If I can make $300 per print rather than $30 per print, I'll take the five seconds to draw a few little numbers on the back of the print or on the mat. If you think that makes me greedy, then give yourself a great big pat on the back for having such altruistic standards (regarding what other people should be doing)--doesn't bother me a bit. I don't really feel a moral obligation to provide an unlimited supply of what is quite obviously a luxury item.

the word greed sounds somewhat out of place in the artist community where making a sale is an event in itself.

Again: I'm against limits. - But it would cause me a headache if somebody would call me: "I saw your picture called "blabla" at somwhere big $$ for a copy..." and in the end would complain: No, at least 75% discount; I'm missing the purple cast... Who am I to reproduce last decades mistakes until the end of my life?

That's why I'd number every printing session.

If I'm going to plunk down some serious dough for an Original Ansel Adams, I would like to know that he print is limited and my investment will be protected. If I don't care to pony up the the money for the limited edition picture, I'll get a cheaper unlimited copy. As all art has in intrinsic value attached, I don't see why this is an unsound business practice. I like to save the word "greed" for nice companies in the insurance business.

I just came back today from looking at Bresson print..It was VERY expensive....over $10,000, yes Ten Kilo dollares Americanos..but in the title it also admitted it was a "recent print"

was VERY expensive....over $10,000, yes

 

It's all about making a living. You command the highest price you can get for your labours. It's a commercial world, that's what it's all about.

 

Ask the poverty stricken.

I once read a story about a Cuban gentleman who was very good at rolling hand made cigars. Some very kind folk helped him out of a aeroplane without a parachute. His product became very exclusive, and the kind folks made lots of money.

 

Unfortunately, i cannot verify the authenticity of the story. And on health reasons would not like to.

This post starts off with a strong pejorative; damning art's connection to commerce. Matt makes it sound as if there is an evil cabal at work. Art and money have always been connected. What's the problem?

 

Now galleries, both photography and "fine art" employ an interesting way to sell "editions". As prints are purchased, leaving fewer remaining images, the prices rise. So, print #25-of-25 costs more than #1-of-25; even though it's the same picture.

 

There has always been a premium on 'rarity'. Even if it's manufactured. Within mechanical limitations, Grant Wood or Picasso, could have made endless prints from their stones and screens, but they didn't. Again, so what? Most artists hope to make money from their endevors.

 

If someone has a salable image and wants to make endless prints, that's OK. But if someone wants to limit the availablity of their work, why is that greed?

Agree with Jake. Some screen printers destroy the screens after a limited run and move on to the next thing. Art for arts sake. Not many photographers chop up the negs or blow away the files tho;-)

Hmmm, altought some of the logic also applies to the opposite. How about Rubens and his "art factory" that churned out copies of his work by apprentices, or Dali, in the end just putting out crap and making a living with it? In one case (Rubens)it certainly was the artist's own greed, but also his excellent business sense. In the other case (Dali)it appeared to be manipulation of a sickly elderly person.

"why is that greed?"

 

Or as 10cc memorably put it: 'Art for arts sake, Money for God's sake!'

 

:-)))

Why is wanting to make the best living from your photography greedy? I don't see the sense in letting the laws of supply and demand give you a meagre income.

Most photographers who think they are going to increase their print sale income by limiting editions are probably deluding themselves. Unless you are a famous and collectable photographer, buyers are likely paying for the decorative, not the collectable value of the print. Except for these famous, collectable phtographers, the "supply/demand" ratio is probably determined by the supply and demand of photography of a given type, rather than of a particular image. And, if you do produce the rare image that is sufficiently good and unique to sell more than a reasonable edition limit, you've lost those additional sales by limiting the number you can sell.

This is an interesting discussion, and article by Brooks Jensen, one that many photographers, including myself, have agonized over. Having gone through the whole gallery and editioning process some might find my thoughts on the topic of interest.

 

When I started selling my prints through galleries there was a lot of advice offered by the gallery directors to change from my philosophy of numbered, but unlimited editions, to a limited edition. To be honest I had no idea of how many saleable images I would be able to produce so I was hesitant to possibly limit, or even end, my income. This is not an issue based on greed but on simple economics and survival, no income, no photography.

 

As I have gotten more confident that I will be producing images for quite a while to come, I became less fearful of limiting my edition size. Ultimately I settled on an edition size of 100 which is composed of sub editions consisting of 3 sizes. This is still considered a huge edition and as my body of work grows I am considering making the edition smaller still. Editions are made shorter all the time, usually because the artist dies or loses interest in producing the same image, and most collectors would prefer that an edition be shortened, of course this only after they have already made their purchase. An edition however can never be enlarged. Shortening the edition on my part is not for the purpose of jacking up the price of the editions, although they probably would increase in price, but because one can get tired of printing the same images over and over and having to maintain an ever increasing catalog and inventory of prints. I think that like many photographers my favorite work is usually my newest work and as the older pieces become established, due to higher visiblity over time, they can overshadow and supress the newer work.

 

Another problem with having an unlimited edition, or even a large edition, is that there are many highly respected galleries that will not want to carry your work if the edition is too large. This happened to me with a very highly regarded gallery in europe. They wanted me to drop my edition size from 100 to 30, they said that they would represent me with the smaller, and higher priced edition, but not with the larger edition which was priced appropriately for the edition size. I disagreed and we parted ways. Was it greed on their part or just smart marketing? Clearly to many in the general public a print selling for $5000 is perceived as better than a print selling for $1000, and 1 out of 30 has more value than 1 of a 100. Is this a fictional or perceived value, of course it is. However if a perceived value becomes the common belief, and people act on that belief, perception or not, it becomes reality. For the photographer, making the same total income from an image that you had to only produce 30 prints of versus 100 means that you now have gained the time to produce 70 other prints from other negatives. Ultimately a greater diversity of your work will be made available. Printing, spotting ,matting and mounting 70 prints is no small thing, and if you have 50 images in your catalog that's 3500 fewer finished pieces to produce. That time saved means a lot more time shooting.

 

As was mentioned my Brooks Jensen, if a photographer does not limit his edition he makes his work available to many who could not otherwise afford to purchase them. There is truth to that. However for the established artist there are other ways in which your work can be mass produced and sold far more affordably to the public. Many photographers, myself included, have their work available as posters. Personally even though I have made several images available to poster publishers, I am still uncertain if it ultimately is in my best interest to so. I have concerns about the perception among collectors that they can get an original for one price and a poster for far far less. I have further concerns about the confusion generated by poster galleries and fine art galleries both selling "prints". Then again there is a satisfaction that one gets from having others appreciate your work and ultimately living with it, be it a poster or silver print, that goes far beyong any kind of monetary compensation, so I guess that is the personal benefit that comes with the risks.

 

Ultimately it's a call that each photographer must make for his/her self, one dependant on their needs, time and philosophy.

 

Maybe Brooks Jensen should just make unlimited editions of free prints - then he won't have to waste so much energy on angst filled ponderings.

Of course, an alternative view is that photographers who produce limited editions, mentioning no names you understand, only make the sort of rubbish that very few people would want to look at.........