Selling prints - Limited Editions or not etc?

[amateriat]

my comment was on d lux(?) reply. not yours. i specifically used his words "marketing ploy".
an edition is a very simple concept. you say you will print and sign 10 and that's what you will do.
it's like being truthfull.
that's all.
a limited edition is the same as it ever was on the art market.
you may think it's right or it's wrong but that's how it is.
you can tell the gallery you have no limit to your printing. if they buy it, fine.
maybe you will become famous for doing it different. who knows?

Ah. Got it. 🙂

I think the gallery scene is a bit of a land mine right now. Between outside economic forces (of course, it's fair to ask: when has it been otherwise?), and the current peculiarities of the art market itself, I think it's harder to get one's bearings than ever.

Being the master of your work, you have to do what you think works best for you. I'm with you about the nuttiness/capriciousness of the current art scene, although it can be argues that this has been going on for quite a while, with only certain pockets of more-sober sensibilities lurking away from the limelight. (Fred, am I full of hot air here?)

I definitely grok your frustration. Wish I had a sensible answer that went beyond the usual ranting.


- Barrett

 

[colker]

Ah. Got it. 🙂

I think the gallery scene is a bit of a land mine right now. Between outside economic forces (of course, it's fair to ask: when has it been otherwise?), and the current peculiarities of the art market itself, I think it's harder to get one's bearings than ever.

Being the master of your work, you have to do what you think works best for you. I'm with you about the nuttiness/capriciousness of the current art scene, although it can be argues that this has been going on for quite a while, with only certain pockets of more-sober sensibilities lurking away from the limelight. (Fred, am I full of hot air here?)

I definitely grok your frustration. Wish I had a sensible answer that went beyond the usual ranting.


- Barrett

the crazy thing is: when you grab a sothebys or christies catalogue on the photo market you see a Kertesz sold for 4 grand and someone you never heard selling for 200 grand.
it's a business w/ little to do w/ the importance of the artists in culture or anything.

 

[jeff laitila]

The decision really depends on your client base. If they are the type with extremely deep pockets then limited editions can be the way to go, but it is still a very dangerous path to travel since you are putting a finite cap on how much YOU can make from a single image.

I also wrestled with this question, and I decided to not issue limited editions. It has worked out very well for me, but your mileage may vary.

If you do decide to go that route make sure you raise your prices, considerably. I have prints that I have sold hundreds of copies of, and I could have lost a lot of money if I had been selling as limited editions.

 

[eli griggs]

Instead of not numbering or limiting an edition, I suggest you simply print smaller, dated 'Open Editions' and signify that by adding an "O.E." after the print number, ie, 3/12 O.E., date, title and signature or some such variation.

Always be up-front with buyers and keep a detailed log of each run or 'edition' to include number of prints and any variation from the first, such as print and sheet size, paper used, toning, etc.

Artificially limiting the number of prints from a negative seems to me to be a short sighted practice that only benefits the gallery owners and after they've moved on to promoting other artists you have lost any future income from that negative for no worthwhile reason.