The truth about limited editions

Slight correction to the URL: http://bermangraphics.com/artshows/whatsizetheedition.htm

When you were first talking about limitied editions I was thinking about limited edition cameras and such instead of prints...espicalily with the part about greed...ANYHOW. I don't really have much to say about this topic but this paragraph from the article does resonate with me:

"There is only one reason to limit the number of photographs
made from a negative and this is becausewe all know that
artwork and photography are subject to the laws of economics,
the most important of which is supply and demand.
An edition is limited so as to limit the supply
and push the price higher. There is no other reason to do it."

"Greed" - sounds pretty preachy to me.

Maybe the starving artists are hungry; and need actual food; bought with this "greed"; ie actual cash.

I like his idea about just numbering the print, without limiting the edition, that makes good sense to me.

From my darkroom and printshop experience I'd call a honest and natural limitation good. This would mean "1/67 '04" which would say I got 67 pleasant prints out of the box of paper of a discontinued brand, which I happened to have at home, until my developer was empty or whatever and I don't know if I ever like to print this negative again and I certainly wouldn't like to chain myself to the look I got out this year. Agreeing with others: artificial limitations are bullshit. But damn, if you are an artist, behave as one and especially do what YOU like, but only IF you likle. If the audience wants your picture ask your manager to hire some labrat; surely your own work should be more valuable and rare. I'm fed up with limited editions of whatever offered as a extra rip off anywhere. But I see no faulty behavior in just documenting somebodys work.

because there is no degradation of the print with successive printings, unlike with etchings etc, doesn't it seem like an affectation?

Limiting an edition of prints is a device used by some artists or galleries to raise the price of their product. If collectors see that say a Michael Kenna edition is near selling out, they will pay a higher price for the print. The gallery and artist know that as an edition sells out the price on the secondary market (the already collected prints) is going to rise anyhow. Once Michael or any artist finishes producing that print, the price will raise anyway. Some artists continue to produce prints of an image no matter how many they have made and some stop making prints of images they made but no longer are interested in making further prints. Some cal it creative marketing and others understand that certain artists want to produce new work and leave the old behind them. Limiting obviously works for some artists. I would love to get certain images for my collection but the prices are so high or the image on the open market so rare, I can forget it. Try to find an Ansel Adams, "Trailer Park Children." Ain't nowhere, no how. After lkooking for years, there are none around. Lots of Ruth Bernhard images around right now. You'ld better hurry though. I hope she lives to be 110 but when she does leave us, you can forget being able to buy any of her more collected images.

I think this guy makes a pretty impressive argument. The "limited Edition" concept came across my mind when I first hit the gallery circuit a few months ago. I didnt have enough information to go either way. I was just grateful that anyone would want to hang my prints in their home. I have yet to number any of the prints i've sold.

Anyone concerned about limiting their photographic editions has probably not really considered the the real reasons behind their motivations.

Why do you assume that they're self-deluded rather than savvy about marketing? If I can make $300 per print rather than $30 per print, I'll take the five seconds to draw a few little numbers on the back of the print or on the mat. If you think that makes me greedy, then give yourself a great big pat on the back for having such altruistic standards (regarding what other people should be doing)--doesn't bother me a bit. I don't really feel a moral obligation to provide an unlimited supply of what is quite obviously a luxury item.