Filmwasters
Which Board? => Main Forum => : Ed Wenn December 02, 2007, 12:39:12 AM
-
I stumbled across this place (http://www.ishootfilm.org.uk) via Fickle. Not checked a lot of the content yet, but their hearts are definitely in the right place. The more the merrier I say.
-
Thanks for the link Ed. I'll have to go back again to look more extensively, since I had trouble carrying on after reading the extensive quote from Brooks Jensen about his philosophy regarding printing and selling his images. It certainly flies in the face of what I was taught as a printmaker and in my opinion is problematic.
Mr. Jensen first states that he does not want to produce his work in limited editions (fine by me). I take that to mean he will produce and sell his work as open editions (i.e. everyone who buys a print knows up front that an unlimited number may be produced and sold). Again, I don't have a problem with that. But after all this, Jensen then stamps the back of the prints with wording that implies the print was produced as part of a limited edition (e.g. "Third Edition, Third Printing, Print 3 of 6").
Documenting prints is a good and necessary thing that protects the artist and purchaser. But this type of information is misleading since it implies the print was produced as a limited edition when it was not. No information is given about how many "editions" of the print were/will be made, difficult because Jensen intends to keep printing the image as he sees fit. It seems that the "limited" part implied by the text he's using is determined by how much time Jensen had for darkroom work that day, and I suppose earlier or subsequent "editions" of the same image might be 5 prints or 8 prints.
I guess I've gone on a long rant here, but whoever buys a Jensen print is completely unprotected by this type of production. Having their print valued will be difficult (is Jensen still printing the image, has he stopped, does anyone know how many total prints were produced in how many "editions). I think it opens the door for the less scrupulous to produce "non-authentic" prints that will devalue the work that Jensen is producing and selling. Bad for him and the people who buy his work.
Geez...I think I've written more here than I have in my first 17 posts combined. Apologies to all!
-
I've stumbled across something similar in the past. The guy probably read the article in Lensworks that is reproduced on the BermanGraphics (http://www.bermangraphics.com/artshows/whatsizetheedition.htm) website.
The guy probably didn't get the subtleties of the original article. From my point of view, there are two ways of doing editions. The open numbering system like Ansel used (1, 2, 3 , ...) and the edition (1/10, 2/10, ...)
The problem with a standard edition is that you have to keep the size small in order to increase the value of the prints. But if you do this, you deprive yourself of the right to print further copies of the same image. There is also the fact that galleries will often require that you produce limited editions.
One way to bypass this is to work in the same way as book publishers. When a book is completely out of print but is still in demand, they do a second printing. So photographers can do the same. Do a short run of one negative, then a second edition and so forth. The thing is that the edition must be clearly identified. There are also artist prints and not for sale prints which can be made.
Check out the article, it's worth the read.
-
I guess I've gone on a long rant here, but whoever buys a Jensen print is completely unprotected by this type of production. Having their print valued will be difficult (is Jensen still printing the image, has he stopped, does anyone know how many total prints were produced in how many "editions). I think it opens the door for the less scrupulous to produce "non-authentic" prints that will devalue the work that Jensen is producing and selling. Bad for him and the people who buy his work.
This is a fascinating topic which I think strikes at the heart of how we as photographers view the value of our own work.
From a couple of year's of listening to Brooks Jensen's podcasts, reading his opinions on photography and seeing the work he produces I would have no hesitation in drawing the conclusion the he is entirely honourable in his commercial work. I would also guess that he values the photographic image, its content, ideas and skilled execution over and above any notional financial value it may have. I'm sure all of us on a forum such as this would want our work to be taken on its artistic merits rather than its investment potential (even though it would be fantastic to be offered plenty of money for it too!) Anybody buying his work should have no problem identifying the fact that their numbered print is just that - numbered but not limited - from the extensive philosophy to printing outlined on his website. I personally like very much his iconoclastic approach to those who attempt to give more (spurious) weight and importance to their prints by limiting them - and yes I have done it myself as I'm sure many other filmwasters have too.
I hope this doesn't sound too much like a rant, but I have been mulling over the Jensen philosophy myself for the last few weeks and for someone not in bed with top galleries (who have their own financial concerns with photographers they represent) it seems completely normal to me to take this humble and open approach to marketing. Take theatre/cinema as an example. How many leading actors took whatever jobs they could get rather than hold out for the big break? And how many simply vanished because their egos were in the way of getting out there in front of an audience which they didn't deem to be worthy of them? In my book photographers are in the same boat and I would personally would prefer to have 100 of my prints on walls at 20 pounds each than 10 at 200 pounds.
In short, I think photography is helped not harmed by this democratic approach. It does beg the question how to make a living doing it this way however as most of us don't have a "sideline" like Lenswork to help us along. Time for some creative thinking, maybe, or just doing it for the love of it...
Mark
-
As honorable as this approach is, all the while galleries and collectors demand works in a ltd series, there's not a huge amount that can be done.
-
The fine art world is an area that I know very little about, so this is not a loaded question, but is it not possible to produce limited edition prints/series for galleries and sell different material via websites etc. in unlimited quantities?
Or if you really want to re-use the same material, could you not make the limited edition prints somehow more sexy (e.g. different size, different toning, different paper) and keep the unlimited editions to a still solid, but less exciting configuration?
In the section of 'the arts' that I come from it's fairly common practice for bands to issue deluxe limited edition (and potentially highly collectible) vinyl versions of albums or singles that will also be being released on CD, or for comic artists to produce limited edition high-end versions of graphic novels for the fine art market while the standard editions hit the high streets.
-
I've had a few messages over the last 12 hours about this thread being locked, but I can't see that it is. Just to be sure I locked and unlocked it a few times, but if anyone has any further problems posting to this thread please let me know.
-
The fine art world is an area that I know very little about, so this is not a loaded question, but is it not possible to produce limited edition prints/series for galleries and sell different material via websites etc. in unlimited quantities?
Or if you really want to re-use the same material, could you not make the limited edition prints somehow more sexy (e.g. different size, different toning, different paper) and keep the unlimited editions to a still solid, but less exciting configuration?
this makes perfect sense to me. i seem to recall reading that some photographers offer unsigned works in unlimited numbers, whereas the signed are limited. i thought i read somewhere that susan b. (hopefully she'll pipe in and correct me if this is wrong) offered smaller prints in unlimited numbers but largescale prints in a limited quantity.
william
-
Yeah- I had tried to respond last night, but could not...
The fine art world is an area that I know very little about, so this is not a loaded question, but is it not possible to produce limited edition prints/series for galleries and sell different material via websites etc. in unlimited quantities?
Or if you really want to re-use the same material, could you not make the limited edition prints somehow more sexy (e.g. different size, different toning, different paper) and keep the unlimited editions to a still solid, but less exciting configuration?
To your first question: Typically galleries will not allow selling of non-limited edition prints either through the gallery itself, or by a contracted artist on his own (website, direct sales, etc.). The reason is that the selling of unlimited prints decreases the overall value of the individual pieces. If a gallery knows that you sell or have sold large quantities of uneditioned prints, you become much less 'valuable' to them. If there are 100's of a certain image floating around, why would someone want to pay high prices asked by galleries? If on the other hand you are asking weather one could sell image A in limited editions through a gallery and image B on his own in unlimited quantities... that's a bit of a grey area. Technically it would depend much on the arrangements you have with particular gallery. Some galleries ask for no-competition clauses which grants them full rights to sell all of the artist's work through the gallery at the agreed upon commission. Usually, this is only for those higher end galleries that will get a great deal of business and interest from a high profile artist. Many do not ask this however, and in this case I suppose it would be possible though perhaps frowned upon.
To the second question: Typically numbered editions will correspond to a certain number of prints made at that size, though not always. Larger sizes tend to have smaller editions, thus (theoretically) further increasing their value. As far as simply changing one small aspect about the photo, and then re-issuing a 'new' edition... again, I would say that's just a bit deceiving... Editioning is traditionally reserved for completed pieces... there is an A/P (artist proof) for works that are not complete, or may undergo such changes that you mentioned (toning, paper changes, etc.). These are sort of test runs so that the artist may proof how it will look, and decide on a final presentation of the image before beginning the full edition of that particular piece.
In the end, I'd say it all comes down the the artist himself making the decision. Some artists do not edition. Some are very strict and offer their work in small limited editions. Then there are people who fall anywhere in between. But, if you are going to edition, do so properly. Do not try and trick people that you are offering a limited edition all the while assuming that you will simply re-print at a later date if the edition is exhausted. Choose an edition size that is not excessive (1/10000), yet will allow you to make a decent return on said image.
Personally, I edition every print I make. I usually do small editions, at most 50 or 100. My reasons for doing this- some mentioned above, galleries, etc. Also, I don't want to be selling the same image over and over again my whole life. If I sell 50 or a 100 prints of one image, I'm quite satisfied. Plus, if I am selling the same images I made 5 years ago, then I'm not improving my craft... so it just pushes me to constantly produce new and better work than before...
-Jason
-
I've had a few messages over the last 12 hours about this thread being locked, but I can't see that it is. Just to be sure I locked and unlocked it a few times, but if anyone has any further problems posting to this thread please let me know.
It's fixed now. Yesterday there was no 'reply' button at the top.
-
To number, or not to number. This is the question that drives me crazy.
I started doing limited editions about 10 years ago. At the time, I started doing that because I heard that that's what galleries were interested in. Well, 10 years on, I'm not in any galleries, and I wish I'd never started numbering!
I have a few images that best sellers for me, and are close to being sold out of their editions of 100. I so wish I could keep selling them!
Galleries may never take me, and yet I've painted myself into a corner by limiting how many prints I can sell. Plus, keeping track of the numbers is just more of the not-fun work.
I've been debating whether or not to stop doing limited editions: To make all new images open editions, or just do what Ansel Adams did. (If it was good enough for him, it should be good enough for me!)
-
I once met a girl who did series of 3 prints. To prove they were the only prints that would ever be made of each negative, she would cut the negative in 3 parts and tape them to the back of each print!
I don't think I'd have the guts...
-
I once met a girl who did series of 3 prints. To prove they were the only prints that would ever be made of each negative, she would cut the negative in 3 parts and tape them to the back of each print!
I don't think I'd have the guts...
Oooh. Me either, but I love that style. I have a background in conventional printmaking and with etching plates, the plate would have to be deeply scored after the edition was printed.
-Jason
-
Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful, interesting input on this.
... Editioning is traditionally reserved for completed pieces... there is an A/P (artist proof) for works that are not complete, or may undergo such changes that you mentioned (toning, paper changes, etc.). These are sort of test runs so that the artist may proof how it will look, and decide on a final presentation of the image before beginning the full edition of that particular piece.
In the end, I'd say it all comes down the the artist himself making the decision. Some artists do not edition. Some are very strict and offer their work in small limited editions. Then there are people who fall anywhere in between. But, if you are going to edition, do so properly. Do not try and trick people that you are offering a limited edition all the while assuming that you will simply re-print at a later date if the edition is exhausted. Choose an edition size that is not excessive (1/10000), yet will allow you to make a decent return on said image.
Personally, I edition every print I make. I usually do small editions, at most 50 or 100. My reasons for doing this- some mentioned above, galleries, etc. Also, I don't want to be selling the same image over and over again my whole life. If I sell 50 or a 100 prints of one image, I'm quite satisfied. Plus, if I am selling the same images I made 5 years ago, then I'm not improving my craft... so it just pushes me to constantly produce new and better work than before...
-Jason
Good points. However, a print that is designated A/P is an artist's proof from the completed edition. The situation you describe should be designated W/P for working proof. As I was taught, for an edition of 50 prints, the artist has the option to take another 10% (e.g. 5 prints) as artist's proof prints. These are identical to the editioned print in every way and there is nothing special about them. Don't be fooled by a gallery that tries to sell you an A/P print for more than the price of a numbered print from the edition. Also don't swallow any stories about lower numbered prints being the "first to be printed and therefore more valuable". The way I was taught to edition (by a Tamarind Master Printer) is basically the following: once a print has been produced that meets all of your (the artist) criteria, it is designated "bon a tirer" (BAT). In other words it is the master print to which all subsequently produced prints are compared. Once prints have been produced and dried, each is compared to the BAT. Those that are not 100% identical to the BAT are not included in the edition and are subsequently destroyed. Those that are identical to the BAT are then numbered and signed by the artist. Generally speaking, the order in which the prints are numbered does not necessarily (and probably rarely) corresponds to the order in which they were printed. All of this careful attention to detail is part of what makes editioned prints more valuable - it ensures that each person that purchases a print will receive one that is in no way inferior to any other print sold from that same edition.
As for edition size...I guess it's all relative. What is a small edition (50 or 100) to Jason is hellish large to me. The largest edition I ever produced from an etching plate was 30 prints, and the tyranny of producing that many identical prints convinced me to produce single, unique prints (monotypes or monoprints) after that.
-
In France, the maximum size of the edition is fixed by law in order to protect the buyers. From memory, no more than 30 prints can be made "legally". It might some day become a part of the European Union legislation... though I can't really speak about that.
If you plan on, one day, having your prints cross the pond, it might be a good thing to know.
-
Good points. However, a print that is designated A/P is an artist's proof from the completed edition...
Thanks for the correction. I missed that.
-Jason
-
As honorable as this approach is, all the while galleries and collectors demand works in a ltd series, there's not a huge amount that can be done.
I'm not with you on this one Leon. It's always been important to strike at the status quo where this is not beneficial and whilst my own stand on this is not likely to dent the establishment (to put it mildly!) I can see plenty of sense and integrity in the Brooks Jensen approach. What if CDs were limited and only 50 copies were ever released at some ridiculous price? What would the state of music be? Limiting only really seems to serve egos - that of the buyer and the seller. It doesn't add anything to photography as an art form or to humanity in general.
If the market for photography were as extensive as the market for music how different could things be? Why on earth should musicians want to sell millions and we are happy with 50 or 100? Anyone else here fancy selling thousands of prints? (Yes, I can dream!) What could we do to make photographs as desirable as songs?
-
God points, Mark. That's one thing I have personally debated. I've always liked to keep my prices relatively low as to make my work somewhat affordable to anyone who would wish to buy one. Still, you have to find some sort of middle ground where you are still making a bit of money and able to support yourself while keeping prices reasonable for buyers.
When I first started selling artwork my prices were ridiculously low as I did want anyone to be able to afford them. Soon however, it became clear that this was not actually practical since I was working constantly producing work, but never actually making a living or supporting myself from it. Now, I have raised prices quite a bit- not necessarily as status appeal, but just to keep myself fed!
-Jason
-
When I first started selling artwork my prices were ridiculously low as I did want anyone to be able to afford them. Soon however, it became clear that this was not actually practical since I was working constantly producing work, but never actually making a living or supporting myself from it. Now, I have raised prices quite a bit- not necessarily as status appeal, but just to keep myself fed!
It's fantastic to hear that you are managing to make a living from it Jason. Despite my idealistic statements, it is obvious that the potential market for photographic prints is a lot smaller than for CDs. A dose of realism is always useful when survival is at stake!
-
...Despite my idealistic statements, it is obvious that the potential market for photographic prints is a lot smaller than for CDs. A dose of realism is always useful when survival is at stake!
I think the potential market for photographic prints is unknown, at least in the context of mass market distribution a la CDs. In the end it's only possible to sell such large quantities of CDs at affordable prices because of national/international distribution and sales combined with significantly huge marketing campaigns. But the requirements of this model mean that musicians like visual artists have limited access to that large market, by virtue of having to be signed to a label (aka gallery). I think there are other similarities as well. If CDs are equivalent to a large, open edition of affordable prints then one might consider that seeing a live performance of a top group is a more expensive "limited edition" experience purchased by "elitists" who are seeking a unique experience.
I find idealism refreshing and a great source for developing a personal philosophy. You obviously care a lot about your photography and making it available to as many people as you can. I hope you find a way to make that happen.