| | | -
I have done editions and am leaning more towards them now than ever. I have on a few rare occasions destroyed negs from old work: one is cut up and taped to the back of a print frame that is a one off that I did for a close friend as a gift - b/c he really treasured the fact that he had the only one - others are destroyed simply b/c it was poor work I don't want around, ever.
Anyway, the edition for me have nothing to do w/ marketing. I've found it makes little to no difference of whether someone will purchase something - they're more interested in how much and how big. What it is, is a way for me to limit how much of my time/energy I'll spend on a photograph or project, and it allows me, or forces me to move on. It is the end.
Other than that I don't think it matters, whatever makes you feel good, better off worrying about living well and taking better pictures.
-
Recording History
In February of 1945, US Marines were invading a small island in the south Pacific called Iwo Jima. On Feb. 23, 1945, a photographer named Joe Rosenthal photographed US Marines raising a US Flag at the top of Mount Suribatchi. This may be the most widely distributed photo in American History, It has been reproduced countless times. What is the value of this image? I would say that the image of those marines is more widely known than even AA's Moonrise. What is the value of recording History? Priceless.
Photography is not painting. In my opinion, this is a strength and not a weakness.
-
Would making only one print increase value of photography?
No, it wouldn't. Because it still doesn't offer an answer to potential customers who ask: "Why should I pay you when I can make a photograph myself?"
That, IMHO, is the deep underlying problem with photography as art. The buying public has been convinced that anyone can do it (Kodak spend a huge amount of time and its vast resources on this and has largely been successful) and therefore it has no value.
Interestingly to me, the buying public doesn't feel the same way about painting when in fact they can also drag a paint brush across canvas. I've heard the above question from the buying public a number of times, but I've never heard the similar question about a painting.
As long as the buying public thinks it could produce Adams' "Clearing Winter Storm" one day (presumably by shear random chance?) they'll never buy it from one of us. And no amount of playing tricksy with editions is going to change that.
BTW, the answer to that question is basically: "Because you didn't make the photograph -- I did." How diplomatically you choose to convey this answer is up to you. :rolleyes:
-
Personally, I plan to print as many photographs as I damn well please, and let the art world fight over them after I'm gone. Then I won't care one way or the other.
-
The price of a print is based on what the market will bear. If it's a one of a kind that no-one wants it will be as equally worthless as if there were a hundred, or a thousand. If everyone wants it, then you've got something. Rarity doesn't convey value, the market does, and then rarity sets the price.
Last edited by JBrunner; 12-22-2009 at 08:45 PM.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
 Originally Posted by Bruce Watson  Would making only one print increase value of photography?
No, it wouldn't. Because it still doesn't offer an answer to potential customers who ask: "Why should I pay you when I can make a photograph myself?"
That, IMHO, is the deep underlying problem with photography as art. The buying public has been convinced that anyone can do it (Kodak spend a huge amount of time and its vast resources on this and has largely been successful) and therefore it has no value.
Interestingly to me, the buying public doesn't feel the same way about painting when in fact they can also drag a paint brush across canvas. I've heard the above question from the buying public a number of times, but I've never heard the similar question about a painting.
As long as the buying public thinks it could produce Adams' "Clearing Winter Storm" one day (presumably by shear random chance?) they'll never buy it from one of us. And no amount of playing tricksy with editions is going to change that.
BTW, the answer to that question is basically: "Because you didn't make the photograph -- I did." How diplomatically you choose to convey this answer is up to you. :rolleyes: I agree with this sentiment to some extent. I would not lose hope though. Selling photographs is like selling any other art, people like a story. They need to believe they are getting something different, either as in our case Analog, but most importantly an experience. I spend alot of time talking to my customers about the type of camera (in my case vinatge cameras, LF etc, and even let them handle them), I talk to them about the experience of taking the image and it's meaning to me, and engage them on what they think. You would be surprised how many people will move from the position you describe to understanding the process that created the image, and recognising it's uniqueness. If someone looks long enough at an image, then approach them and start talking..art does not sell itself...not even paintings, and I am afraid too often we are not salesmen by instinct.
If a person talks to you long enough about an image, then offer to bring it down off the wall so they can hold it while they look (if not too big)...the moment they hold it..you have just raised the barrier for them of letting go of it.
People want more than a photograph...they want a story. Let's be honest, that is why AA and Weston sell for so much...not just the photographs, but the story of the men themselves, how they did it, and when...you get my meaning?
I am not talking of making money selling that leads to a living purely from photography here (afterall that is left for only a few), but I am talking about NOT expecting photographs or any art to sell itself, and not expecting to sell huge quantities. One photograph on a wall means at least 10 new people see it. Keep you customers informed of you newest images by circulating half yearly email updates....you may find they buy one for a friend...etc., follow up on interest by asking them for their email address if they don't buy...if they give it to you they are interested, just not right now, if they give excuses, then you know not to waste your time...move on to the next customer... Marketing, Marketing, Marketing.
Rgds, Kal
-
My friend, Jefferson Hayman, offers his work in editions of 25, but with a unique twist. Each photograph (and they're all film based) is part of a symbiotic relationship with either an artist made, or antique frame. Hence, there are no two that are identical...particularly the antique frames. So you get a hybrid presentation of repeatable images, but one of a kind entities. His work is in some of the most important collections there are including one I am not allowed to mention, but it's a huge honor, and very significant.
http://www.jeffersonhayman.com/index.html
-
 
while i spent many years printing ephemera-negatives
( just stuff i stuffed in my enlarger head and disassembled it
or wax transforming from liquid to solid, or stuff trapped in collodion or ... )
and these things were made as a way to be a better printer ( not a marketing gimmick )
i started doing them force myself to translate anything and everything into a b/w print, and it worked 
even if i wanted to reassemble the materials i printed or reheat the wax or
pour some more flexible collodion in a plastic thing ... it wouldn't be the same ...
while i spent 10 years making single prints ( and will probably do it again ),
i am on the fence nowadays.
i have work up on a website that is making as many prints as people want to buy ...
the new technology DF spoke of, and the internet work together to democratize photography
or painting or monoprints or anything else so if someone wants it, they can buy it there...
i say i am on the the fence because while i like the unique quality of a
hand made thing, i have realized there is no point making things if no one can afford to buy them ...
and i doubt it will raise the value of anything
Last edited by jnanian; 12-22-2009 at 07:47 PM.
-
Originally Posted by GraemeMitchell I have done editions .... What it is, is a way for me to limit how much of my time/energy I'll spend on a photograph or project, and it allows me, or forces me to move on. It is the end. This is the answer *I* needed to hear.
Thank you.
-
I once sold a rookie Joe Montana football card (1981 Topps #216, I beleive) for $60.00. That was when the Beckett's were calling for over $200.00. Reason: that's what the guy would pay.
Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay to acquire it. Once this is realized it makes things easier. In my case, it was $60 more than I had the day before. If I had held out for $200.00, I would not have had the $60.00. This is not to go so far as to say that one should underprice their own work to generate sales, simply to be aware of what, as aforementioned by Jason, the market will bear.
As to destruction of negs to ensure photographs are one of a kind, I have heard of this being done. I would no more cut up a negative than sell one of my kids. Unless of course, I could recoup that $60.00. ;p
Thank you
-C
Fear not the future of which you were deprived. Be thankful for the past which has been bestowed upon you. - Me, five seconds ago
| |
Adv Reply
