"Editions": A way to limit yourself and your overall marketability in general?

[Daniel Stone]

Hey all,

I've had a notion for a few weeks now, and have decided to put it out to y'all, since many of you are much more experienced than I with dealing in the art gallery/business scene than I(which, to be honest, is practically ZERO experience !).

My basic, raw question is this: Editions, what's the point in the end? Are we attempting to "lure" people in, with this sense of "investing" into the pieces hung on the wall, that we're so proud of making? If me, as an "unproven" artist, financially speaking, a gallery that I approach to sponsor and/or sell my work has a preference for an "edition" mindset, vs. a "anyone who can afford it can own one" approach, I'd rather have the latter. Personally, I don't like the idea of a good photograph only being enjoyed by a few people(that were there early enough to get in on the "editioned" prints), but anyone who truly enjoys looking at it, should be able to plunk their credit card down, and take it home and enjoy it! I'm not simply looking at it from a capitalistic point-of-view, but one that is interested in getting my name "out there".

If I understand correctly; as a young artist, Ansel Adams sold his handmade prints for quite a small sum, compared to his later/last years, where fame and vastly increased popularity had caught up with him and he was able to enjoy a nice reward financially. Prices ROSE because the demand was there. But the prices were still "reachable" to most people, and a good many folks have an Adams print in their home now, simply because of that lower initial pricepoint, and a seemingly "open edition" mindset. (please correct me if this is wrong)

I have had the opportunity to sell/gift(my choice) a few photographs that I have made over the past few years, to people I know, and some by word of mouth. I attempted to set up/run a website for a short spell relating to my photography, with the intent to display and sell my printed & matted photographs through that channel. Well, things aren't in the right season yet for that to happen. And I don't have a body of work put together that, in my opinion, is worth the time and effort of displaying on a website. Yet. So I took the website down. Word of mouth only, right now.

But back to editions. It obviously works well for many gallerists/artists who sell their art this way. Limited production, so to speak. I'm not interested in making wallpaper art to sell at Ikea, but fine pieces that have the skill and attention to detail in them that a print might attempt to be sold for 4-5x as much in most galleries, in a "traditional" gallery setting that's selling to the middle/upper classes with more disposable income. I'm interested in ALL of the markets. From Susie Q. making $25,000 a year in Omaha, to John D. making $1,000,000 annually, and having a second home in Aspen. A "pricepoint for all" approach, where smaller prints(marketed to smaller homes and apartments w/ less space), to large prints, that can be properly displayed in a large home(aka that Aspen home). Not every size available under the sun, but a pricing scale that is open to everyone, top to bottom.

So what say you? I'm not looking to bolster my opinion or self-worth, but wanted to see what others thought of this "open season" type method. Appealing to the masses price-wise, where a print for almost any budget is available to enjoy.

cheers,
Dan

[BrianShaw]

Editioning is a way to establish/maintain a higher market value for notable works by notable artists.

Price and value are dynamic and based on many factors, some of which are not well understood.

For all the rest of the works/artists, it probably isn't worth the time or effort... especially if the artist is hungry and eager to make sales to pay rent or buy food.

p.s. No votes granted to the poll because each option includes a "it depends".

[DrTang]

You gonna destroy that neg after the limit is reached?



It's a silly gimmick that I always found to be super pretentious


that's my take

[Jim Jones]

I agree with the OP and other above remarks. Edward Weston was selling original open edition signed prints for $25 late in his life. Unlike him, I don't rely on photography for income, and can still meet that price. It's easier with a good digital printer. Limited editions is one of the ways a gallery or photographer can pander to the rich while limiting some others the genuine pleasure in owning good photography. At least it is less pretentious than inflating the notoriety of photographers to justify obscene prices for inferior works. Open editions sold at low prices is one way we can enrich the lives of many rather than aspiring to mere riches for ourselves.

[bob carnie]

Ok I chose selling at a lower point for more people to see... but also if you have the goods and are able to push the work to the upper gallery's who then think they can sell your work , my choice does not work.

Most photographers - lets say 95% will never sell out an edition... but who is to say which photographer with the right stuff and good guidance cannot be part of the 5% or less where strict editioning and extreme high prices make sense.

Right now you can buy a Ed Burtynsky at Metivier Gallery for 35 thousand... and he is indeed selling out his editions.... took Ed about 25 years of hard , dedicated work to get to this point..

When I grow up I want to be like Ed.

[Daniel Stone]

Ok I chose selling at a lower point for more people to see... but also if you have the goods and are able to push the work to the upper gallery's who then think they can sell your work , my choice does not work.

Most photographers - lets say 95% will never sell out an edition... but who is to say which photographer with the right stuff and good guidance cannot be part of the 5% or less where strict editioning and extreme high prices make sense.

Right now you can buy a Ed Burtynsky at Metivier Gallery for 35 thousand... and he is indeed selling out his editions.... took Ed about 25 years of hard , dedicated work to get to this point..

When I grow up I want to be like Ed.

Hey Bob,
Thank you for chiming in here. As a gallery owner, I appreciate your candor on the matter. Yes, I don't think anyone(especially photographers making prints for sale) would turn away people willing to spend that kind of money on a print away in a heartbeat ! However, everyone has different aspirations in life. We all have to eat, but some of us are perfectly fine with the simpler life, versus having the options of top-shelf filet mignon every night. But saying that, it's been a good while since I've had the opportunity to have a really nice steak, but I'm in no rush

Open editions sold at low prices is one way we can enrich the lives of many rather than aspiring to mere riches for ourselves.

THIS ^^^ sums ups exactly what my opinion is on this topic. I just couldn't put the words together myself yesterday

[BrianShaw]

Not everyone runs a business "to enrich the lives of others"; some run a business to make a living, turn a profit, etc. There are multiple goals/objectives, each of which is different but OK. One has to respect each value system equally if it isn't doing direct harm to others.

[Daniel Stone]

Not everyone runs a business "to enrich the lives of others"; some run a business to make a living, turn a profit, etc. There are multiple goals/objectives, each of which is different but OK. One has to respect each value system equally if it isn't doing direct harm to others.

Totally hear ya on that one, and totally agree! My take is that one can still make "affordable" prints of high quality, but sell at a lower price point, then trying to swoon big-money clientele into purchasing something for it's "investment value". I'd want to know they are buying it because they will enjoy it, first and foremost, not because they're hedging that it will rise in value so they can flip it(which I'm not against, I'm a capitalist myself, in the end)

[jnantz]

You gonna destroy that neg after the limit is reached?



It's a silly gimmick that I always found to be super pretentious


that's my take

i have made series of prints that there is only 1 image that exists. some have
called them "artist proofs" i just call them single edition prints ( i called them hybrid prints 25 years ago
but the analog/digital mafia eventually hijacked the term hybrid to mean something else ... ).
the negative is / was made of a variety of materials and destroyed soon after the prints were made.
no additional prints would be able to be created.
this might be seen as a gimmick to some, limiting the amount of images generated ...
but to others it is a way to only create 1 image, nothing more, nothing less.

the ability to create countless images from the same negative to me is photography's greatest weakness and greatest strength.

[Corran]

You gonna destroy that neg after the limit is reached?

I had a prominent art dealer tell me once that I should do 1/1 editions and include the negative with the image, perhaps affixed to the back of the print in a negative sleeve.

I thought that was an interesting take on it...but I haven't done it!! I feel like editions make little sense when it's so easy to make more, without the purchaser even knowing to boot. I would think a savvy buyer would realize that too, but maybe not.