The Leading Voice for the Black Arts Community.
Limited Editions, How Many?
Recently I was asked about what size a limited edition should be, which brought back memories of some very lively discussion on a art photography forum. After much discussion and research I believe that the requirements set out by the US Copy right Office were the best to follow in my opinion. Of course that initiated much conversation among the photographers.
I believe that knowledgeable collectors who collect LE's want an edition of 200 or less and more so if the edition is 100 or less in one size and on one substrate.
LE's resulted because plates that print makers used started to degrade after a number of impressions or prints were pulled by hand or mechanically pulled and no more prints could be done. The first prints, the last print pulled and the prints in between would be similar but not exact because of differences in plate pressure, humidity, ink viscosity and other factors, which would affect each print.
The advent of photo mechanical and now digital reproduction and printing allows an unlimited number of identical prints to be produced since there is plate degradation.
Now we see LE's of 1800, 2000 5000 and more, in different sizes on different substrates with enhancements. How are these considered LE's? Several years ago, I believe it was the winter of 2000 or 2001; Art Business News ran article about African American art and one of the issues they spoke about were prints, which were sold as LE's but were not hand pulled. What struck me in the article was that a couple had invested in numerous LE prints by well respected artists at that time as a way to enhance their retirement portfolio. Prior to retiring they had their collection of prints appraised for resale. They were told basically not to quit their day jobs. That started me to research LE prints and there value. Artist were doing these huge editions in multiple sizes and making lots of money. Then a well know white artist decided to reissue a print as LE of 10,000. Ten years earlier he had issue it as a LE in a different size. His collectors and galleries carrying his work sued him and stopped carrying his work. His collectors reasoned why should they buy his originals if all they had to do was wait a few years and get a mass produced print. He wound up losing $250,000 and eating the entire print run. (I will try to find the article it was published in ABN)
This also happen to a black artist on the west coast who has since passed away. The artist had done a series LE's prints in the late 1980's-early 1990's and then in the mid 1990's decided to reissue a number of earlier LE prints in a new edition and size. A number of black galleries stop carrying the artist's work and the artist's work dropped in value. Some of you on the west coast may new the story.
I believe that creating editions over 200 in multiple sizes lessens the value and is not really a LE. To be a LE on that edition is sold out the plate, negative or file is canceled so their can never be a print run again. The is does have vale because there will be no more. This does not sit well with a lot of artist. Traditional print makers have no problem with the concept. Since I do some print making I have no problem with it and in regards to my LE photographic pieces I have editions of 100 in my pre-digital work and some of those are nearing the end of their run and the negative and file will be canceled (I've scanned the older work in order to be able to print it since rental print labs have all but disappeared.) I continue the edition until the end as a digital print with the notation that the first prints in the edition were hand printed in a wet darkroom. All my new LE are editions of 50, 25, 10 or 5. This works for me, my collectors like the rarity of the print but this may not work for others.
I believe that LE's should be 200 or less and in one size and can be split between different substrates such as canvas, watercolor paper of photo paper. But they should add up to the total edition.
Let me know your thoughts on this.
From the US Copyright office:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
(2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jennifer Oladipo on -
Less than 200 sounds reasonable. I've noticed a proliferation of options for buying multiple prints in multiple sizes, and that does make work just a bit less appealing. The other thing, though, is that I've noticed a lot of the stuff sold this way looks like it was created for mass production. It sort of feels like shopping for posters. Nothing wrong with that at all, and it's great if artists find buyers this way, but that's just not what I'm usually looking for. I've always considered LEs a rare chance for more than one person to enjoy and own an image, not to mention benefit from increased monetary value of a work, but it seems like that's changing.
-
Permalink Reply by Marsha Hatcher on -
I'm not a fan of mass producing any of my work. On some occasion I have been asked to create a piece specifically. to be reproduced and that is OK by me. I am an artist as well as a collector and get much pleasure from knowing that I have something that is rare.
-
Permalink Reply by Sálongo Lee on -
As I do less weekend art festivals and concentrate more on photography base mixed media installations and my wall books for gallery and museum projects; I'm creating less open edition artwork and more limited edition pieces in editions of 50, 25, 10, 5 or just one of a kind depending on the piece. I still do a lot of photography and will always have those open edition images for the online galleries like Fine Art America but will have some images which are LE's of 100 or less.
-
Permalink Reply by Jesse Johnson on -
been meaning to comment on this subject
but first i think a distinction should be made between original graphics/multiple originals and photo mechanical/computer reproductions
the photo mechanical/computer reproductions are usually produced for larger markets and in limited edition form for buyers to think they have gotten a reproduction that has value. Those edition sizes go any where from 50 and up. I remember Bev Doolittle doing a time limited limited edition of 90,000 when she and the art market were hot about 15 - 20 years ago. Those $350 retail prints/reproductions are now less than $100 on ebay - with her signature.
I assume that this is not what you are talking about although i must admit ignorance as to which category pure digitally produced images and photographs go into.
In the world of multiple originals , for most artists, 200 is too many. I'd argue that 25 to 75 is the sweet spot - generating a certain degree of exclusivity for the collector, but large enough for the artist to make sure that their key collectors and primary support galleries each get 1 piece. With the idea that quick sellouts induce higher prices for future work, or the same price on smaller scale future work.
But the masters can buck the trend - Bearden, Lawrence , Catlett (just off my head) all have original graphics in editions sizes ranging from 150 to 950 which are all sold out and costing multiples of the original purchase price on the secondary market.
-
Permalink Reply by Sálongo Lee on
-
I agree there should be a distinction between original graphics, multiple originals and photo mechanical and computer reproductions. For one thing photo mechanical and computer reproductions are basically the same as computers are use to create the plate from a digital file and control the printer, which instead of being a offset printer is now a table or wide format ink jet printer using pigment or solvent inks. You still wind up with a print made up of dots no matter what surface it is printed on.
The old masters do buck the trend but in most cases they have passed on and there will be no new editions of their printed unless someone discover some previously unpublished artwork and prints it. Or in the case of a well known famous photographer, the son and only heir makes prints from his mothers negatives and sells them but without her signature. Or in the case of the Mona Lisa there was a new limited edition print produced but not signed by Leonardo. http://www.monalisarevealed.com/mona%20print.html
But for those artists doing LE's whether hand pulled from a screen, a hand etched plate or a digital file there is a sweet spot that will appeal to collectors and galleries. Of course collectors like for there to be as few as possible in the edition and galleries and publishers what as many as possible to maximize profit. I personally like 100 or less ans usually do editions of 25, 10 or even 5 but I'm not trying to please a gallery and my work is only directly available from me. Also some pieces are labor intensive and the artist may do very small editions because they want to move on to the next project.
The question about where computer generate art and photography fit in relations to LE's creates a lot of comment among traditional painters and print makers. Because photographers and computer artist can generate unlimited perfect reproductions, which opens the door to abuse when making LE's. The artist must be willing to abide by the implied contract that exists when they say this image is a LE of 100. The collector must trust the artist and take their word that there will be no more images printed in any size when the edition sells out, There in lies the problem, the integrity of the artist or the publisher. Will they be willing to resist making more images after they see an edition sell out in a matter of weeks or months instead of years. That is why it is important for an artist to think carefully about committing to do LE's of some or even all their artwork. As far as pricing one can decide to raise the price as the edition sells or not, which I have heard of some artist doing which is the exception to the rule the rarer it is the more it should sell for. I have from time to time have not raised the price as an edition sells, for me I want it hanging on a happy collectors wall. But then my LE's also include mixed media constructions and artist books that hang on the wall.
There is no concrete answer as a an artist replied to the post via a email to me "The edition is whatever the artist say it is".
-
Permalink Reply by Darryl Love on -
At the end of the day, if the artist's hand is not readily apparent in the creation of the image, then it's not art. It's a poster, and a poster is not art--in my opinion. Limited editions giclees aren't art--even if the artist signs the giclees. They are high-tech posters. Limited edition fine art prints are pulled from an image the artist created on a matrix--either limestone in the case of lithography, hand-cut stencils in the case of silkscreen or copper plates in terms of engravings, etchings or aquataint. Here's a very good rule of thumb--if the image has printed lettering at the bottom of the image, it's not fine art--it's a poster. If the artist signed the artwork at the bottom of the page in pencil, then it's fine art. The difference can be huge. I just bought on Ebay an original Jacob Lawrence lithograph for $450 that I had appraised by Swann Galleries for $3,000 - $5,000. There is an $800 Catlett print on sale now that's easily worth $2,000, and there are a couple of John Biggers lithographs at below market value prices. If you know what you are doing, there is serious money to be made in limited edition fine art prints.
-
Permalink Reply by Sálongo Lee on
-
I agree with most what you wrote except that giclées art not even if the artist signs it. First the term giclée is like using the xerox to define any type of copy. All giclées are inkjet prints no matter what size printer is used, from a $29.00 desktop printer to a $60,000. 60 inch wide commercial printer. The term being used by most artist and knowledgable curators and suck is pigment ink photograph or reproduction. As a photographer and print maker and also the owner of an Epson 24 inch wide printer, which I print reproductions for visual artist and my original photographs there is a distinction which between what I do and what you get from Kinkos or WalMart.
First I use only archival pigment inks and th watercolor papers and canvas I print my images on are archival. Meaning they are acid free, lignin free and contain no optical brightners. They are signed with an archival pen or pencil and coated with an archival clear cost or varnish.
Second I shoot both film and digital and work on the image in Photoshop before printing my image on two watercolor paper, canvas, wood, glass, metal foil or even on to a skin made of archival acrylic paint.
If I choose to I may even do more work on the printed image by adding found objects or painting or drawing on top of the printed image. Since the image is an original printed by me or under my direction by a photo lab with a printer larger than my 24 inch wide printer it is still considered an original work of art. Also with artist now crossing over and having artist who work in a different medium to create an artwork for them it is still consider an original artwork. I'm not home but when I get back in I will post a link from Professional Artist Magazine which discusses this very issue.
Bottom line if an artist conciebs the idea and creates it in a tangible form even as an original giclée or pigment ink print it is art.
-
Permalink Reply by Sálongo Lee on
-
Part II:
The article I was referring to was in the August/September 2011 Vol. 71, No. 4 issue of America Craft Page 104, " Ideas", which reference " The Art of Not Making by Michael Petry. He talks about the increasing number of fine artists such as Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst who are turning to skilled crafts man and technical specialist to realize their vision and make it a reality. The crafts artist involved all felt the artwork created was not theirs but the artist who conceived it.
Scroll down to the description:
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Not-Making-Artisan-Relationship/dp/050023...
The feeling is that even thought the artist did not actually make it is still art.
The other issue I have is because a image is a printed on a digital printer and has text in it, whether on the bottom or any where in the image does not automatically make it a poster. This is especially so if it is not printed on poster paper but is done in a limited edition on an archival substrate like canvas or watercolor paper or any other substrate. Many major artists include text in their images especially artist who create college, that does make them a poster if they were pulling their own screen prints in limited editions for that matter any hand pulled technique for making limited edition prints on watercolor paper or any other substrate would not necessarily be a poster. I've worked with some print makes who printed on roofing paper and archival cardboard and included text in their work.
We have to be careful say something is not art because the artist did not actually make it with their own hands. But is was their idea and was created in a medium they do not work in by a skilled artist or technical specialist.
-
Permalink Reply by Darryl Love on
-
According to the Smithsonian Art Collectors Program (www.artcollectorsprogram.org), an edition size of 500 or less is investment grade. Personally, I eschew edition sizes larger than 300. There are exceptions. The Elizabeth Catlett print "Survivor" has an edition of 1000. Since it is an iconic image, I would probably buy it at the right price. Artis Lane did a beautiful lithograph of Rosa Parks that has an edition size of 750, signed both by the artist and Mrs. Parks. When it first came out, the price was $500.00. Now, the asking price is $1,500.00...if you can get one.
At the end of the day, the answer to your question depends on your motivation for buying the print in the first place. If you don't care about the value and uniqueness of the artwork, then the edition size is not an issue. BUT, if you want investment grade, museum quality fine art prints pulled by a master printmaker, then the edition size will almost never exceed 300. Jacob Lawrence's prints come to mind as they will always be considered fine art and appreciate in value like his one-of-a-kind originals. None of his lithographs, silkscreens or other prints exceeded an edition of 300. And economics aside, the integrity and quality of the artwork is maintained when the edition size is kept low as the plate tends to wear out with larger editions.
-
Permalink Reply by Megabel on -
Non-segua.....I saw that you are interested in Evita Tezano's art. I have not a print, but an original collage of hers from the '90s which I am interested in selling. Are you a dealer? A collector? Any interest?
-
Permalink Reply by Darryl Love on
-
Hmmmm...not sure where you got that from. Her art is interesting, but I'm not in the market for acquisition right now...I have to pay off $1,500 for an original oil by Dr. Berry and I need to come up with $500 to frame this Jacob Lawrence lithograph I just bought. I know that's TMI, but it's reality...
-
Permalink Reply by Megabel on
-
There was an older thread where you commented on her as up and coming. If you know of a dealer, or have a suggestion of where I should go to sell, let me know. It seems that reselling art of a living artist in a market I know nothing about is a bit tricky. Even if it is stunning.
2012 Artisan Series
Contest
Proud Partner
Collection
Advertisement
Groups
© 2012 Created by Janelle Dowell.
