Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:50:11 -0600
A word or referring back to the idea of icons in photography that Jewelia
mentions. I think she made a very good argument though I thought she might
break into a rousing rendition of "Hello Dolly" at any moment.
Icons: I subscribe to the "Photo Collectors Newsletter" and they have their
"Photo Price Index" PCN has several dozen prints they use to calculate
their "DOW Jones Industrial" average. These are prints that come up in
auction on a regular enough basis that they can build an average on them.
They then use that to compare the photography auction print price market to
other markets like the DOW. I recall that Moonrise was one of the prints
used, as well as Bresson's Rue Mouffetard (Sp?) the one with the kid and
the magnum of wine walking by happily smiling, and Imogenes Magnolia
Blossom, and several dozen other prints.
If you are never going to be famous, it is probably best to edition your
prints. If you are destined for greatest then best not to. I believe there
is 1700+ Moonrises out there. A nice bundle of change if you only
calculate a average of $1000.00 net to Adams per print. Add to that
"Breaking Storm" and "Moon and Halfdome" and you could probably retire.
Arnold Newman is getting $3000.00 -- well his galleries are -- for
Stravinsky. I'd venture to say he has sold several thousand of that one
alone. Here we are talking silver prints, ones that a good darkroom
assistant can crank out in dozens in a day.
One could hardly with a straight face propose that Arnold or Ansel could
have netted more in the long haul by limiting their editions. All of these
iconic prints sell well precisely because the are not limited. If you are a
collector, and the F64 School is within the boundaries of your collection,
then a Moonrise is a must-have to make your collection representative. If
Moonrise had been limited to an edition of 30 you'd have a perfectly good
excuse not to have one.
Galleries are interested in short term gain. If you are 35 years old, they
are not planning for your income when you are 60. Limiting the editions
gives the immediate galleries a sales push. That is, even if the prints are
not in any real sense limited.
I have a question: Does any one know of any gallery that gives the buyer a
signed written disclosure when they purchase a "limited" edition print.
I'll give you two examples:
"This print is limited to an edition of 50 prints in silver gelatin and in
8x10 inch size. No other prints of this negative or any other negative that
could be mistaken for this image will be printed. No other prints in this
or any other size, or in any other media, will ever be printed. For sales
purposes the image can be digitized in a size no larger than 4x5 in 72 DPI
resolution. No other digital rendition in any higher resolution will be
made of the image."
or
"This print is limited to an edition of 50 prints in 8 x 10 size. Other
editions, limited or not, in other media and sizes may be printed at the
photographers discretion. Negatives similar to this one may also be printed."
Most galleries would not have too much problem with the first one, if in
fact that represented the real intent of the gallery and photographer. The
second one, which is more realistic to the situation at hand, would be
quite problematic for many galleries. Without any definition of "limited
edition", it is all shuck and jive.
Second question. Does anyone know if APAD has any ethical guidelines
concerning limited editions.
Final point, as alt-photographers, we in general have less to fear from
rocking the boat here. Most alt work is self limiting. I hardly know of a
platinum printer that could even conceive of printing 1700 images of any
image. I doubt the negative would hold up that long.
--Dick
505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
<http://www.bostick-sullivan.com>http://www.bostick-sullivan.com
http://www.workingpictures.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37