Thoughts on limited editions

[Scott Davis]

" another intersting thread may be how these editions are arrived at... and another thought, many artist's lithographs/prints (picasso, miro, barcelo etc.) were/are editioned in hundreds... "

But, like those folks who mentioned digital printing via inkjet, lightjet, chromira, etc, the artists you mention above were printing their prints via a mechanical reproduction process. The reason those prints were limited was twofold.

A: to drive the price in a gallery - an original Picasso drawing/painting/sculpture would go for tens or even hundreds of thousands in his lifetime - a 300 piece limited edition lithograph would go for a few thousand. That made owning a Picasso affordable for patrons who admired his work but couldn't afford an "original".

B: lithography plates, and most other traditional printing plates (copper etching, woodcut, etc), degrade with use, so by the time you have printed umpty-dozen prints, the last one will not look as good as the first. You have to decide then at what point does the quality loss outweigh the artistic content from a marketability perspective?

I think over time, even a very careful photographer will run into this problem with his or her negatives - You handle a negative 500 times, or even 100, and you will eventually get a scratch or a nick on it somewhere... then you have to spend that much more time retouching the negative, or spotting/bleaching the print. Also, unlike a painter or other graphic 2-d artist, the editioned print IS our original work, so we don't have a "master" object that sells to a higher-budget crowd, and then a "mass" reproduction to sell to more budget-constrained customers.

[Paddy Quinn]

"Tom Manglesen sells all he can print of an edition. He limits his and they regularly sell out. He helps those who purchase & then want to re-sell to do so. His wildlife work is as nice as can be done and certainly isn't "cheesy wall art" for anyone. A link is below so take a look at what he does & see if it is art in nature or "cheesy wall art for the masses". It is wildlife art if anything is.

http://www.imagesofnaturewebstore.com/"

This is really "decor art" or "art to match your sofa" sellling in high volume. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a totally different market. Very much the Robert Bateman type of thing. You may or may not consider it cheesy - much of it is certainly perfect as an image for one of those inspirational posters :

http://gallery.bcentral.com/GID4842940P2274851-Limited-Edition-Photographs/Bears/1567-Family-Lookout-Brown-Bears.aspx

= "teamwork" or "family"

But its whole marketing strategy is based on art for the masses.

It's not cheesy like Kincaid, but it's not art like Gerhard Richter either

[paulr]

"As far as who benefits, everyone does. The gallery (higher price per print), the collector (as the edtion sells out their purchase is worth more), and the artist. I print several artist proofs, one to trade, one to keep for color control and one to sell at a later date if I want. (why should the collectors be the only ones who benefit from the investment?)"

Doug is right here. I don't know where this conspiracy theory comes from that limited editions benefit collectors and dealers but not artists. If there's any conspiracy, it's between the artists and the dealers against the collectors! Limited editions don't just help collectors get more resale value. Nothing can guarantee that. Historically, the vast majority of art, photography included, is a terrible investment. It tends to lose value faster than a new car. The limited edition creates a sense of scarcity that drives the profits up for both the artist and the dealer with the initial sale.

Remember that the dealer is on your side. If you don't believe this, then you should drop your dealer and seek a better one. The whole point of having a dealer is to have someone who really knows how to sell work and command the highest prices take care of you. They work on straight commission, so whatever benefits them, benefits you. And if it's a long-term relationship, then whatever benefits them long-term benefits you long-term.

If there's anyone on this list who's selling out editions of 100 prints, I can promise you that you're not doing it in the gallery marked that I'm talking about. Nobody is doing that, so it's just not a real concern to anyone who's actually there.

Jorge mentioned a tiered system where the price increases as the edition numbers get higher. For example prints 1 to 10 cost $750, prints 11 to 20 cost $1000, prints 21 to 30 cost $1500. This is a system a lot of people use. A woman I met who sells in a Chelsea gallery (the community where Chris Jordan's gallery is) uses this scheme, and has kept her price structure the same even as she's gotten well known. The benefit is that it encourages people to buy early, and also that it allows people with less money to get her work by buying less known images. The famous ones are all expensive now and out of reach of anyone but rich collectors, but you can get a bargain by buying the more obscure ones. It's a system that seems to have benefits for everyone.

[Brett Deacon]

Paddy, you are entitled to your opinion, but you should know that's exactly what your views on Thomas Mangelsen's work amount to. I own two stunning Mangelsen panoramic landscape prints and object to your characterization of them as "art to match your sofa." It is not Gerhard Richter, like you said, but there are many people like myself who would rather decorate their homes with prints of beautiful landscapes than abstract oil paintings. The fact that Mangelsen's photography involves subjects that you find fit for inspirational posters does not make it any less acceptable as fine art, nor its buyers any less sophisticated. I consider myself to be a critical evaluator of print quality and some of Mangslsen's work is among the best I've seen.

[paulr]

"The fact that Mangelsen's photography involves subjects that you find fit for inspirational posters does not make it any less acceptable as fine art, nor its buyers any less sophisticated. I consider myself to be a critical evaluator of print quality and some of Mangslsen's work is among the best I've seen."

This really isn't the point. The point is that there are different art markets, with different conventions. Heirarchy, opionions about sophistication, etc., are all beside the point. Chris Jordan asked the original questions. He's represented by Yossi Milo in New York, which is a part of a particular gallery world which, like any other world, has its own set of values and conventions. If there's snob appeal associated with that world, it might be because it deals with more expensive work, with work that's more likely to overlap what museums collect, and to sell to art collectors more than home decorators. But again that's beside the point.

If you identify that particular world as your market (the place where you're most likely to sell your work, or where you want to) then you're going to have to understand their conventions. Be aware that they're going to be much more willing to pass on any given artist's work than to radically change the way they sell to their clients. It's not any more complicated than that.

[paul stimac]

Paddy,

"but it's not art like Gerhard Richter's either" - I just don't agree at all with that statement.

I'm not really fond of Manglesen's pictures but saying that his are not up to the level of Richter’s is naive.

Art is indefinable and 100% subjective. Saying that one piece is higher or better than another is infinitely arguable.

People selling expensive art want the buyers to think it's exclusive so they've created the notion of higher art. The people who buy it want to separate them self from the masses so they buy things that the masses can’t afford

It would be more accurate (less subjective) to say that Manglesen's art is not "marketed" at the level of Richter's. Which leads to the notion the level of the art that an artist produces is determined by marketing NOT content. You are naive to think otherwise.

[Paddy Quinn]

"Art is indefinable and 100% subjective"

is a simplistic cop out

and Mangleson's stuff looks elitist to the fans of velvet elvis' and dogs playing poker (of which there are mant sincere such fans shopping at Walmart and such and who have no wish to ever know who Richter is) - it's a circular argument, but it's not about marketing.

[paul stimac]

Patty,

>"Art is indefinable and 100% subjective"
>is a simplistic cop out

Give me a bullet proof (un-arguable) definition of art then. The world has been waiting.

and I've seen a show in a so called "contemporary" gallery displaying velvet Elvis's and dogs playing poker along with other items - so your example was right on – it was an installation dealing with the social norms and values surrounding he idea of ‘social class’… very deep stuff - very high art.
Another time that same gallery had a show of Jackson Pollock-ish paintings made by a man who literally craped ink out of his ass. He would give himself different colored ink enemas and then let nature take it's course. ... very deep stuff - very hight art.

[Keith Laban]

Limiting the number of images available for sale is purely a marketing tool and has no bearing whatsoever on the integrity or quality of image.

[paulr]

>>"Art is indefinable and 100% subjective" >is a simplistic cop out

>>Give me a bullet proof (un-arguable) definition of art then. The world has been waiting.

Most areas of philosophical investigation .. probably all of them ... lie somewhere in the middleground between "indefineable and 100% subjective" and "bulletproof and un-arguable." Suggesting otherwise is just a specious argument.

There are plenty of works dating back to Plato's time, representing lifetimes of thought and debate on the nature of art. None claims to be bulletproof or beyond argument (they're all arguments!), but ideas like 100% subjectivity have been easily dismissable for a long time.

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make by giving examples of work you don't respect.