robklurfield
eclipse
lynnb
Veteran
bob338
Well-known
I think it's pretty slimy for Eggleston(and thousands of other artists) to do this, but it happens all the time in the art world.
If you say you're going to limit the edition to 125 prints, then it should be only 125 prints.
If you say you're going to limit the edition to 125 prints, then it should be only 125 prints.
Particular
a.k.a. CNNY, disassembler
Good for him.
I have a hard time believing that the dealer will loose money if he would sell some original prints after Christies inflated the market prices. There must be some caché to having early prints. Some of these dealers are sue-happy and deserve to get burnt every now and then.
I have a hard time believing that the dealer will loose money if he would sell some original prints after Christies inflated the market prices. There must be some caché to having early prints. Some of these dealers are sue-happy and deserve to get burnt every now and then.
swoop
Well-known
Interesting case and decision. I had no idea this was going on. Reading the article it seems like a fair decision. The original series was a dye transfer print and it only held value because it was a limited edition print. Eggleston making more prints would seem to diminish that value. But the new series was created as digital prints. And while the items sold for a great sum of money, I don't think that a digital print would decrease the value of an original dye transfer print. In fact I'd think it would probably increase the value.
swoop
Well-known
Exactly. I think it's great that the judge took that into consideration. That if you say you're only going to make XX amount of print then that should be it. But the new series was printed in a different way, so I guess technically it is a different collection.
bob338
Well-known
Artists do this all the time. I think it's pretty sleazy, and it lowers my opinion when I see it.
My opinion of Eggleston and his cash-grabbing son(my opinion!)is not good.
I used to be a fan...
lynnb
Veteran
Limited editions don't serve the photographer well. They're an artificial way of inflating the secondary market, which benefits galleries and dealers. Mike Johnston's article, linked above, is worthwhile reading.
bob338
Well-known
Jamie123
Veteran
If your notion of Eggleston's character has any bearing on your appreciation of his work than I don't see how you could ever have been a fan. From what I have seen so far (in documentaries, etc.) he seems to be a very unpleasant human being. The work's still great, though.
As for this particular situation, I don't think it's sleazy at all, either of Eggleston or other artists who do this. It's their work and unless they misrepresent the edition (i.e. make more prints in a single edition than advertised) there's nothing wrong with making new editions. Not only because as an artist you might reevaluate certain work you did in the past, but also because times and technologies change and new technologies might allow you to print in a way that was not possible in the past.
Richard G
Veteran
The law is interesting. It seemed like a just decision to me.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Digital prints? And people paid a record price for them? I think that's the real abomination here. 
I'm not sure I agree with the judgement though. For the reason that simply duplicating a work on a different process - does not in my mind equal a new work. For instance, Jaws in a movie theater is the same work as Jaws on VHS, or on DVD, or what have you. Just because the duplication process is different, doesn't mean the work is different. If you say you're only going to make 125 prints, but then you go on making more prints using different processes - you're being blatantly deceitful. Especially not if the new process is used to replicate the look of the original edition... it's a bit different than say reproducing a watercolor work through lithography vs. aquatint - the two processes are going to lend a noticeably different effect on the final print that is also noticeably different than the effect of the original.
I'm not sure I agree with the judgement though. For the reason that simply duplicating a work on a different process - does not in my mind equal a new work. For instance, Jaws in a movie theater is the same work as Jaws on VHS, or on DVD, or what have you. Just because the duplication process is different, doesn't mean the work is different. If you say you're only going to make 125 prints, but then you go on making more prints using different processes - you're being blatantly deceitful. Especially not if the new process is used to replicate the look of the original edition... it's a bit different than say reproducing a watercolor work through lithography vs. aquatint - the two processes are going to lend a noticeably different effect on the final print that is also noticeably different than the effect of the original.
RichC
Well-known
I collect first editions of photobooks - does that count?
PS: I produce editions of the same print in different formats ... inkjet as well as (digital) C-type! Much more important than the waffle in some posts here by people who seem unclear on what the art world considers the norm for editions (and which - don't forget - created the desire for editions) is that the edition number is always stated and never exceeded for a particular format: a rule Eggleston is obviously very familiar with...
PS: I produce editions of the same print in different formats ... inkjet as well as (digital) C-type! Much more important than the waffle in some posts here by people who seem unclear on what the art world considers the norm for editions (and which - don't forget - created the desire for editions) is that the edition number is always stated and never exceeded for a particular format: a rule Eggleston is obviously very familiar with...
Digital prints? And people paid a record price for them? I think that's the real abomination here.
Why the bias again digital prints?
gns
Well-known
All else being equal, I'd want the one that looks best. And I've seen good and bad examples of both.
"Manufactured collectability"? Isn't that what any editioning of photographs is? Regardless of the print method, any negative or slide can be reprinted forever.
I think those collectors payed big money for the large size prints and the very small edition size (if I remember, they were editions of 2. Is that correct?).
Right, I agree generally speaking... but how about digital vs. regular c-print? I'll take the digital at this point.
gns
Well-known
I own a few original prints, including a Friedlander and a Winogrand, but to be honest, I don't really know or care if they are editioned. Someone here said that Friedlander never editioned his work. I'm pretty sure, no posthumous prints have been made of Winogrand's work, so that is sort of edition limited by death. I'll worry about it if I ever need to sell them, I guess.
Jamie123
Veteran
I collect first editions of photobooks - does that count?
It does insofar as it's a good example of how other areas of collecting seem to have no problem with the concept of editions. No book collector who owns a first edition photo book would ever think of complaining when the publisher prints a second or third edition.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Precisely right.
Apparently plenty of people do, thus the new editions. I seriously can't understand anyone going nuts over this. The Dye-Transfer prints are obviously older, obviously Eggleston's original version. The new prints are absolutely more what the market wants today - big color prints. Different strokes.
I'll agree that a modern digital print of a color image is often miles better looking. Most older color materials are lacking in some way to my eye.
paulfish4570
Veteran
the judge seems a wise person, taking into account the different technologies ...