So, if limited editions are used to....

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . . . Why is this not the same for painters or sculptors? They work for hours, days, or even months in one piece and have no problem parting with it.

When I do a painting, it is the process for me, more than the results. Sure, it can take numerous hours spanning over weeks or months, but at some point it is done, and you move on to the next idea.

The other aspect is the love/hate relationship with each painting. I start out liking the idea, then in the process start despising it, and finally when I start liking it again I know I need to stop working on it. I don't know how many other painters go through that, but it does contribute to why I disconnect from the final finished work.

I apply some of this attitude towards my photography. The idea might be a good start point that I enjoy. The rendering for me is the film, usually a transparency selected/edited out of a few shots. After that maybe one print, or sending off a scanned file to a client, then not much connection beyond making sure the print comes out the way I wanted/expected (or the client expected).

Maybe the attitude that I have from painting is why I would not consider doing limited editions, nor even producing multiple prints. After finding that one frame of film that accomplishes what was intended, then I feel a drive to move onto the next concept/idea.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[billschwab]

If we are supposed to be "artists" then we should not be afraid to let go of the negative and show that with our talent, vision and mastering of the technical part we are capable of producing more work, if we are supposed to be only as good as our last shot, why not just do one print and be done with it?

An honorable position to be sure Jorge, but financial suicide if you are trying to support a family with your work. I realize not all are, but there are those of us that do not have a day job to fall back on. It has nothing to do with confidence in my work and everything to do with feeding a child and providing it with a good education. Limited editions are an accepted way of "business" in the FAP world and it is my experience after years doing this that their advent as applied to photographic art is more collector driven that it is dealer or photographer driven. Sure there are those that can command big $ for their work and therefore justify destroying a negative after one sale. For the rest of us down here in the trenches, there are mouths to feed and car payments to make. Editioning is not some scheme to artificially inflate prices, it is a means to make what can be made from artwork that is traditionally thought of as less valuable than many of the other fine arts yet still expected to be "limited" by those collecting.

[kjsphotography]

Bill I completely disagree. I have a family of 4 and I manage. There is an important thing I think Americans forget. They can either earn more or expect less and unfortunately as a corporate run society that is driven by greed most want to earn more, charge more and feel important. Me, I prefer to except less and live within my means and in doing so I can happily raise my family doing what I love without the worry of having to charge thousands for my work. In doing so, more people can own my work and I can offer them something original as I don't have to sit behind a desk pushing a pencil. I own a house, cars and have a good life and more importantly I can make it.

It is not suicide whatsoever selling one of one at all if you work at creating new work on a continual basis. How do you think painters make it? They only paint one and I know many that make a good living from selling there originals and they don’t sell for thousands either. I do not have a day job to fall back on at all and this is my main source of income ( 80% ). I don't have to sell a photograph for $1K or 5K to make it, I can get buy on my sales very happily. I prefer to sell 10-20 originals a month for $100-200 than 1 for $1000 or $2000. Yes, I do still also offer editions but I think I am going to start doing more 1/1 to force myself to get out there and create new work on a continual basis and not count on old work making me my money. The last thing in the world I want to have happen is become stale or lazy in my art by relying on old images.

After time I feel more people will buy your 1/1 work because they will feel that they are getting something unique and not just another numbered photograph that can be reproduced on a whim. As you say collectors control the market and if they feel they are getting something special they will keep coming back.

Again everyone has to do what is right for them, and some want to do edition of 10000 and that is good for there business model, but for me at this juncture I think offering something original is something I want / need to do as I want to create a work of art one time like a painting and not reproductions.

Just my humble opinion.

Kev

[billschwab]

Bill I completely disagree. I have a family of 4 and I manage.

That is a good thing for you Kevin and I wish you the best with your plan. I'm all for living frugally and do so quite well, but it was a long time ago that I could support my family on $2,000 a month! It has nothing to do with "greed" or "feeling important". It has everything to do with providing for my family, having a little cushion for coming rainy days and being able to help others from time to time with their needs.

[Greg Lockrey]

That is a good thing for you Kevin and I wish you the best with your plan. I'm all for living frugally and do so quite well, but it was a long time ago that I could support my family on $2,000 a month! It has nothing to do with "greed" or "feeling important". It has everything to do with providing for my family, having a little cushion for coming rainy days and being able to help others from time to time with their needs.

Same here. The difference between being a successful artist and one that starves is just marketing.

[Jon Shiu]

Interesting story in the paper today about a successful 4 yr old abstract painter:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../PKGMSDQA6.DTL

http://www.marlaolmstead.com/

Jon

[Gary Tarbert]

Really interesting thread, the reality for me to limit to one, the single purchaser would have to really love the print as i am not famous & the price would be up around$20,000 (price based on fully sold series in my current format).
I also provide a replacement Guarentee so this would be an issue if the print started
fading or was damaged in some way.
Also i could not bring myself to destroy the original It would be a deed i would not be able to do.
we moved house 2yrs ago and a pano on 120 film was misplaced from Nz south island was lost 2yrs later i havn't got over it!!.Cheers Gary

[Scott Morgan]

I enjoyed seeing the different viewpoints on the 14 pages of this thread! Pardon me for bringing back an older thread...blame it on the new guy.

As for one-of-ones: I visited Fatali's Sedona gallery a few weeks ago. On the wall was a nicely framed page offering for sale a print that is one-of-one. The write-up said the negative was damaged by chemicals in the darkroom, and could never be used again. The price tag for this one-of-one: $107,000.

On the other hand, in Alain Briot's book, he says,"the sales of one of my images single-handedly paid for the house I currently live in." What he says (elsewhere) about the house is that it has 3 rooms specifically for his business, and he and his wife wanted a floor plan that would keep the business separate from the 'normal' living. So, with this in mind, I would guess his house cost around $300,000 to $400,000, maybe more. (He lives in Phoenix.)

Would Mr. Briot have made this kind of money with a one-of-one of that image? No.

Fatali's one-of-one is priced where it is because his other work is NOT one-of-one. Whoever pays for it will feel it has that value, because his other prints are reproducible.

If a buyer walked into a gallery where all 100 or so images were one-of-one, what would the percieved value of each then be? What I'm saying here is that maybe do a one-of-one occasionally, so as to keep the value of it high. I'd hate to miss out on the one best-seller that single-handedly pays for a nice house.

On the other hand, I see the artistic viewpoint of one-of-ones so that all prints are unique. I guess I feel strongly about it both ways. ;-)

Scott

[Richard M. Coda]

As it is public record here in Maricopa County, Mr. Briot bought his house for $170,000 in 2002, and it is 1685 sq. ft. He lives in Peoria, not Phoenix. Just an FYI, so everyone knows the facts.

[Scott Morgan]

As it is public record here in Maricopa County, Mr. Briot bought his house for $170,000 in 2002, and it is 1685 sq. ft. He lives in Peoria, not Phoenix. Just an FYI, so everyone knows the facts.

Thanks for the facts, Richard. Peoria vs. Phx would make a difference. My mistake was I was thinking in terms of today's prices. I was going off what he says in his book--that he lives in Phoenix. I understand though, that most people from out of state would not know where Peoria is, so it's easier to say Phx.
Scott