How do you edition prints when every photograph is subject to multiple interpretations in the darkroom? I have heard that AA printed very different versions of Moonrise. You can't have a high contrast and a low contrast version of the same photo in the same edition, can you? What if you print it high contrast for one edition, and then decide on a low contrast interpretation -- is that treated as a new edition? Or what if you have a 11x14 version and an 8x10 version?
Why bother? That whole editioning nonsense is basically a ploy adapted from lithography, where the impression plate would simply wear out anyway. Then photolithography came along (posters), and sleazy gallery marketers would start putting edition numbers on things just to look like they were collectible, when they generally weren't. Now you've got digital printing and the possibility of cranking out multiples, but who really sells that many of a given image anyway?
Well assuming you do want to bother -- then how do you do it? I make platinum prints. I don't run more than 10 copies of each image ata time (can't afford more!) and I like to keep track of them -- how it was made, when, who I sold them to, how much, when etc. Collectors like to know that stuff instead of thinking that at any time, I can run off another X number of prints, and so their "collectible" print is actually not very collectible.Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
Cyrus, do you print a full edition all at one time?
As an alt printer I just number the images starting at 1 and going up from there. If a gallery can guarantee me enough money to limit the ceiling of my potential income from possible sales then I will do so. Otherwise I call bullshit. Collectors don't care - they buy what they think or is told is collectible. My prints are all still numbered and as an alt printer with severe medical problems my editions will be small regardless because I won't ever print that many images.
Well I am just starting with this so I don't have a system worked out yet, that's why I am asking how others do it. I don't really need to rely on this for income so that's not a consideration for me, but eventually I stop printing an image because I get bored of it! (but I'd like to be able to return to again printing them sometime down the road. But that would go against a "limited edition" concept, wouldn't it?)
Anyway one of the reasons collectors think something is collectible is knowing that there isn't a potentially infinite number of copies of the same thing floating around out there (Nevermind the beany-baby collectors!)
But if you just start with 1 and keep going over time (aka an open edition) do you have any way of systematically accounting for the fact that print number 10 may look substantially different from print number 15 (if you decide to use a different contrast or print size, for example?) For example do have an 8x10 open edition, and an 11x14 open edition? One edition dedicated to one intpertation of the image, and another edition to another interpretation ?
Don't know and don't really care if it is right or wrong but I have always numbered all my prints in limited editions of 12, 15, 30, or 45. I will and have, run another edition of the same negative in a different size. I always keep one of the prints for myself and when I run out of prints in an edition I am perfectly ok with that. With myself at least, printing a negative to my satisfaction to say 8x10 and 11x14 will produce two very different results.
I assume that at the very least all copies of a print in a single edition should be identical, and printed at the same time. So I guess I can start out making a large, medium and small edition of the same image. These can be open or limited editions. Down the road, if I reinterpret the image, I can designate it as a new edition?
Thanks Scott - that's what I'm leaning towards.
Some people condemn the practice of creating "limited editions" of photographic prints, or even editioning photographs at all, claiming that it is merely a pretentious practice based on other art forms, creating artificial scarcity on what can potentially be an unlimited number of prints made from a single negative, and thus accomplishing nothing more than raising prices for collectors.
This probably is true for professionals that rely on photography as a business and so can look at their work as a commodity. Terms such as "artificial scarcity" apply to fungible commodities, but not necessarily to art. Because I don't do this professionally, I edition my prints not for marketing purposes but because I want a systematic way of tracking my creative output and development as an artist. Similarly, I limit the number of copies of prints made per edition (thus in effect creating "limited" editions) not because I have set some arbitrary maximum number of prints in order to maintain a certain market price for my photos, but because I have exhausted whatever it was I was trying to creatively express at that point in time & have decided to move on to other projects.
So in short, I think I'll do this: I will edition my prints. Each of the prints in each edition will be made at approximately the same time (a printing session can last from a
few hours to a week) and the prints in each edition should look more or less identical even though they may be printed in different formats. I make a limited number of copies for each edition, usually not more than 20 per format (For example, a "First Edition" run may consist of 15 prints in 8x10, 10 prints in 11x14, and 5 prints in 16x20-inch formats.) If I decide to return to a negative and print it again at a future date, all the new prints will be designated by a new edition number, so I can have a second, third or fourth edition as time progresses. The number of prints per edition are limited, but the number editions are not limited. And, I keep meticulous records about each print from each edition in my darkroom diary, so I can track each print to the specific date that it was created.
Does this sound OK?
Very interesting. I had just read what Ansel thought of the question in "Dialogue with Photography". He agreed that editions came from etchers but he never followed it. But he also said that galleries use it as a way to keep prices up.
He said that Steiglitz would make about three prints and then move on another subject. Edward Weston also edition his work and when he (Ansel) passed that would be the end of the editions.
Of course the decision to edition your prints or not is up to you. However, if you do choose to print in limited editions, you have a moral and legal responsibility to your collectors to adhere to the limits you set.
I print color digitally so I don't print an entire edition at once. For one thing it would be too expensive. But that's the beauty of digital printing. I do have a master scan that all prints are made from, but still the file may be tweaked over time, especially if I use a different lab or printer. Even if you make your darkroom prints in the same session they aren't likely to be absolutely identical, so this is no different.
I generally offer my work in two or three sizes, for example I may offer a 16x20 edition of 10, a 32x40 edition of 5 and a 48x60 edition of 3. I include some artists proofs so I'll always have a copy or two of the photograph for exhibition, etc.
You may be able to offer additional editions at a later date in different sizes. (Think very different; it may not technically be fraudulent but it would be bad to offer a 17x21 edition once the 16x20 sells out.)
But printing a 'second edition' of a photograph in the same size would be fraudulent and unethical if you sold the original edition as a limited edition of a certain number of prints and didn't inform the buyers in advance that there would be additional editions.
In any event, if you offer a limited edition you need to stick to it firmly. Printing a negative slightly different does not mean you can sell another edition. Behavior like that could anger collectors and will definitely end any relationships you have with galleries.
If you don't want to limit yourself and plan to print more sets in the future, why not just number your prints but not limit the edition? That way you can track your prints but you're not tied into any limits.
Personally, I do limit my editions because the collectors I've met seem to prefer some level of exclusivity. I'm asking them to shell out a lot of cash for a print, so I don't think it's unreasonable for them to expect the print to be limited to a handful of copies. I admit I'm new to the art scene as a former photojournalist, but this seems to be the way most contemporary art galleries work and I don't plan to try to reinvent the wheel.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks