Conversation on prints (by artists)

[Wanta B.Framer]

Partially reposted from the craigslist arts forum: http://detroit.craigslist.org/forums/?forumID=49


Does anyone know if a lower print number < Surreal_blue > 06/18 16:00:37
e.g. a 12/2000 would increase the value? Not a low print number, but one of the first few printed. This is on a modern print- not a lithograph, which could potentially matter. My educated guess would be 'no', but someone here probably knows prints better than myself.

*On a side note, this does matter in books and comic-books, which do several editions, but that IMO is quite different.

Not sure about modern prints < octagons > 06/18 16:35:11
but for antique prints its position early or late in the printing cycle can matter a great deal. They say that early prints are crisper since the edges of the lines' cuts dull as the plate is printed over and over (though it's the kind of thing only a connoisseur would really notice). I heard that from someone talking about 17th-century prints by famous artists, though; not sure if it translates into work from our own time.

would agree with octagon... < Creepzilla > 06/18 16:53:22
in regards to etchings(intaglio) prints...as I have even noticed in my editioning that later prints have lost their richness/lines become compressed and non-existent at times...(Especially aluminum/zinc plates)...but if the piece were a lithograph, I do not see that being a factor at all, since there really is not a breakdown point for printing on stones, or their aluminum? convenient counterpart (that I'm aware of at least)

I also do not know exactly what type of print it is...Woodblock? Linoleum? Etching? Engraving? Other Relief? Silkscreen? Litho? Digital?

In no way would I be able to produce 2000 prints if it were an etching...I am lucky to print 50 from a single plate, before I start to lose a significant portion of the linework, so my lower numbered prints (1-10) have a definitive difference from later prints (50ish), due to my use of delicate linework and a high pressure press bed. Hope this helps somewhat.


print numbers < EA_A > 06/18 17:00:51
It depends on the type of prints. For hand made prints (i.e woodblock) where the method of printing degrades with each print the lowered number prints are more valuable.
For most modern prints it is the opposite. The higher numbered prints are more valuable. Two reasons... First, a print close to the end of the edition is an indicator that the edition sold out. Second, as an edition comes closer to selling out out the price goes up. The last print sold usually sells for multiples of what the first print sold. However this become less true with larger edition

 

[DTWDSM]

Not quite sure if this is a question for us or you are just showing opposite opinions. I have always been told that the actual number does not change the value. When buying prints onthe secondary market they usually never mention the actual number and the prices usually do not vary too much, so I am going with the number does not increase/decrease the value of the print.

Just my opinion.

 

[JFeig]

As an appraiser..... I can see some truth and some false to the various artists comments.

True - Hand pulled etchings etc - intaglio prints - wood cuts - etc the print does degrade as the printing sequence increases. The numbers, however do not always coincide with the printing sequence although they should.

It makes no difference what the number is with mechanically reproduced "modern" prints. As an edition availability decreases, the value of all prints increase........ assuming that actual market conditions are controlling the prices vs a contrived price by the publisher/artist. The actual market demand by individuals wanting a print and what they are willing to pay is what is more relevant.

I.E. prints being available ONLY from the artist is not an OPEN MARKET and therefore not real market conditions.

 

[Wanta B.Framer]

Mr. Mcann, my intent was to start a dialouge. I thought the information was interesting enough to share and would hopefully encourage people to chime in.

The actual market demand by individuals wanting a print and what they are willing to pay is what is more relevant.

I wasn't expecting an appraiser's response, but hey, that's even better!

 

[Jeff Rodier]

In a conversation with Edward Westin in the early eighties I was told by him that the number tells you nothing. He said that often times the prints are numbered with the last print receiveing the lowest number because that is the way they come off the press.

It is just a novelty thing unless the plates degrade during the run. Artist proofs and printers proofs are randomly pulled from the edition to compare prints from the beginning, middle and end of the printing run.

 

[Cavalier]

Oh, our bookkeeper (an avid printmaker) would have a field day with this question; because of her, I refer to copies of my art as "reproductions" rather than "prints."

You know what drives me crazy? Signed and numbered giclee reproductions.

 

[Dave]

Jeff's right if the artist has not stuck with proper protocol. Artist's Proof's however are supposed to be what the artist approves prior to printing to OK colors, etc.

Middle of the run prints should be the best quality as any burrs on the plate have smoothed out but the plate has not lost it's crispness.

Most consumers have been led astray by marketing ploys by print dealers who often charge more for a low number print.

I personally would not call any print edition of over 200-250 prints limited in any way. The old time print makers, such as Emile Weddige or Irving Amen, rarely did any edition over 100. More often their print runs were 25-80 with only 2-3 printer's proofs that actually were signed. I spent 14 hours in Ann Arbor with Weddige pulling his edition of 80 of "Early Spring" with him. He was a stone lithographer. The work was grueling but enlightening.

 

[Wanta B.Framer]

Egads! So you're all saying the Tarkey 'print' I got on that wonderful cruise, is not worth anything!? *

I figured it was less rigid than others would like us to believe. That's a really great print Dave. I bet it means quite a bit more to you knowing your sweat went into the peice (maybe literally).


*yes, this is a joke.

 

[wpfay]

Hi WBF,
If you want some interesting reading on the subject, you might search the archives. Limited Edition Prints have been the subject of several lively discussions over the years.
The meaning has changed over the years from something that protected the integrity of an image into a marketing tool. While purist printmakers would like to retain the original intent, common usage has rendered the phrase fairly meaningless. Printmakers have taken to calling their editions "Multiple Originals" in some cases to distinguish themselves from the hordes.

 

[Riverwood]

I have to agree with Jerome here as he has nailed it with a couple points.
Hand pulled...etchings etc it can make a difference but like Jerome mentioned the artwork isnt often numbered in the order they were pulled.
Modern editions it really doesnt matter but is a true supply demand equation and may fluctuate up and down.

It seems my customers tend to feel 100-150 is limited. After that the artist might as well produce as many as they want, keep prices lower and sell the heck out of the image if they can. ( remember the days of 65,000 prints in a limited edition!!!)

As a side comment....these days it seems customers dont really care about edition size with "general" modern day prints being sold. Any perception of value increasing on these has gone out the window as prints they purchased in the past have had prices plunge. I do emphasize modern day mechanical reproductions here!

 

[jim_p]

Heh. If I were an artist I might deliberately monkey-wrench the process by randomizing the numbers (27/100 then 4/100 then 83/100...)

 

[ntvinh986]

Not quite sure if this is a question for us or you are just showing opposite opinions. I have always been told that the actual number does not change the value. When buying prints onthe secondary market they usually never mention the actual number and the prices usually do not vary too much, so I am going with the number does not increase/decrease the value of the print.

Just my opinion.

Hi guys, Im a newbie. Nice to join this forum.

 

[Blackcat]

So here is my loose change...

Collectors usually want the very first print of an edition, that's why the price is higher for that one. The rest will generally be the same price. Smaller editions, as in less then 50, are ideal for value. Less than 100 is still good. More than that and the value drops quickly.

The edition should be numbered in the order pulled, but sometimes artists won't strictly follow this rule. As for appearance, I think its usually about the fifth one that comes out of engravings and etchings that looks best. You can't just say the middle of a run looks best because the middle of an edition of ten is very different from the middle of 100 editions. There should only ever be the slightest changes between prints from the beginning and end of a run, otherwise the edition should have been made shorter.

There are differences between edition prints, state proofs, and artist proofs. State proofs are the pulled images that printmakers look at to test the plate and to make final changes to the image before starting the edition. Edition prints are all the prints in a series that are exactly, or nearly, alike. Artists proofs are prints made from the same plate but are completely different in colors or changes may have been made to the plate after an edition or between artist proofs.

There are also differences between original prints and reproductions. If it is a print that the artist pulled off the plate, its an original. If it was spit out of a computer and printer, usually in mass quantities, its a reproduction. There are some very nice reproductions made of some artists work using lithographic processes, so even though it is a printmaking technique, the artist likely had nothing to do with the process. Giclees fall in with reproductions, and in my opinion are just glorified posters and are largely to blame for the recent decrease in value for original prints.

And even though this wasn't brought up, I think its another difference in prints people aren't sure about. Monoprints and monotypes are not synonymous. Monoprints are a series of prints taken from a plate with an underlying image but where the application of ink makes it impossible to replicate the exact same appearance. Prints that are mixed media or collaged and are made through the same process for each can be considered monoprints. Monotypes are completely unique (no edition or series), generally where ink was painted on glass or a plain piece of metal.

 

[Jay H]

As I began to produce my own work, I have been seriously thinking about this very subject. Do I limit editions? If so why? How much to limit them? Should I just sign them? What about unlimited but number editions? I'm speaking only of modern digital prints.

It's interesting that after growing up in a shop selling mostly LE prints and framing them often, I had no strong opinion about them. It was “artists work” and not that of a retailer or framer. I was neutral on it until it was my turn.

Limiting editions for the sake of value is what destroyed the art market. In the digital domain, there is no reason outside of marketing to limit an edition. Artist who predetermined to limit artwork as a scheme to make it scarce is a destructive force in the art world.

I have decided to release four print editions. My prints say “Print #__2__ of 5, Edition 4 printed on January 10th 2008”. It is signed and numbered but not limited. You can tell this is the print number 17.

Artists and photographers who still buy into the LE theory have already protested this approach. The only reason they offer is up is not artistic in nature but a marketing complaint. To increase the value of art work do not limit your work. Create better work. Learn to print better. Print on better papers. Keep working and improve the quality of your work. That will increase the value of it far faster than arbitrarily limiting the availability of the art.

Besides, I think very few artist that limit their work to say 250 prints ever sell the edition out. Using traditional printing methods that is a losing proposition because they are sitting on prints that will never sell. They would have been money ahead to print smaller editions rather than one limited printing.

Even when the edition sells out it may have no value. I had an artist call me the other day and ask if I had a copy of their print. They had no more to sell and a client wanted a copy. I told him I had 10 or so and would sell em for $25. TWENTY FIFE DOLLARS for this sold out limited edition print and he said he would call some other galleries.

By numbering your art, but not limiting it, you have separated your product from traditional printing methods that may need to be limited for artistic reasons. You have also made your art available to collectors who are trained, for good reasons or bad, to look for early print numbers. You are also opening up a new reality to some collectors who know that your most recent work is likely your best. Mostly you have not limited your work for only a few who can afford to buy it today. You have made it available for those who can afford it today, and those than can afford it tomorrow alike.

I can envision some other benefits but this post is long enough.

Carry on.

 

[Blackcat]

To Jay H and to others who think like him...

I don't think you quite understand the purpose of editioning prints in traditional or modern printmaking. First, when it comes to printing a digital print compared to a traditional print (engraving, litho, collographs, etc) there are a lot of differences. Traditional printmaking techniques take a lot of physical labor, expensive supplies, considerable health risks, and a disproportionate amount of time as compared to digital prints. (And when I say it takes a lot, you have no idea until you have done it.) There is so much that goes in to one edition which is part of why they are limited. The printing plate often degrades during the printing process which is another reason. Also, once an artist is done with an edition or making artist proofs, they are suppose to destroy the plate so that no more prints can ever be made, there by allowing everyone who bought a print in that edition know that their print will keep its value and that the market will never be flooded with more prints which would then decrease their investment.

With Digital prints, it is considerably easier to simply reprint your work. However, if you have made any changes between one "run" and another to make the work better, than it is not part of the same edition. Another thing to consider is that between runs the exact coloration of inks will likely be off, therefore also not part of the same edition so much as just a reprinting. If you don't want to do limited editions than just don't. But don't degrade the art market by falsely selling what appears to be editioned prints that you will simply reprint as needed.

I am sorry for being rude about this, but as a printmaker and supporter of the arts, I feel its a slap in the face to me and to everyone who follows the traditional standards to have them deteriorated by those who don't understand them. After all this is a framing forum for people who frame prints, please tell us why should people spend good money framing prints that have little value.

 

[Dave]

I agree with most everything Blackcat is saying. The dawn of the digital age has spawned a misunderstanding of what a limited edition print is and has been used by modern marketers purely as a marketing ploy.

As Blackcat said... if there is any ability to make additional images then in no way is the edition limited.

I don't agree that people shouldn't frame reproductions though. Often that is all that some folks can afford. Not everyone appreciates original art.

Traditional limited edition prints are all originals and have unique characteristics that set them apart from other prints in the edition.

 

[Blackcat]

I didn't mean that I think reproductions are bad or not worth framing. I understand falling in love with a particular work of art but not being able to afford the original. What I don't agree with is selling Digital prints or reproductions in what people think are limited editions and of a certain value, and then devaluing the art by making more reproductions.

 

[Jay H]

I'm speaking only of modern digital prints.

By numbering your art, but not limiting it, you have separated your product from traditional printing methods that may need to be limited for artistic reasons.

To Jay H and to others who think like him...

I don't think you quite understand the purpose of editioning prints in traditional or modern printmaking. First, when it comes to printing a digital print compared to a traditional print (engraving, litho, collographs, etc) there are a lot of differences.

Please be more specific in how you think we differ in opinion? I'm well aware of print making and have actually used dad's printer where you had to set the type to make signs. It took an hour to spell out "FOR SALE" and get the ink and pressure just right. It was fun and I remember the process well. I also see the differences in that and hitting "print". There are complexities of each.

I know for a fact that there are plenty of artist that think the entire notion of limiting a print is for values sake. That is a slight on the artist and not the printer. Actually it has nothing to do with the printer. I do a bit of art reproduction here. So far most of the artist I deal with choose to produce “limited” digital prints. Why? I suspect they think it creates demand. I don't agree.



If you would like to discuss the insanity of limiting art as a handy marketing ploy, I'd be glad to. It's a gimmick that is failing. We seem to be 180 degrees out of phase on this. I think limiting a print is because that is all the prints the printing process can reasonably create to the artists standard. That makes perfect sense to me. I do not think it good for art, artists, galleries, or printers to artifically limit art for the sake of resale value. It's a free country and artists are free to do that but they aren't called “starving artists” for nothing.

I do not see what is underhanded about being completely honest with my client. My prints are numbered. Each edition of 5 prints are identical and are printed at the same time. Edition 1 and edition 2 are different prints. They may not be identical and therefore not the same edition. That's dishonest how? If I use the exact same paper/ink/printer I'll bet they are more consistant than print 1 and print 1000 printed traditionally.

I do think it dishonest to have an edition of say 1/12,500 then when those sell out you change the dimentions by 2" and put out another 12,500. I also think it poor judgment to have 10 Artists proofs, 50 publishers proofs, 1000 Examination proofs, 4000 studio proofs, then 12,000 L.E. prints. Sure it's limited. Even inside one edition there are editions. "Limited" seems like an aweful liberal use of the English language.

If you wish to discuss the printing hierarchy and make sure that everybody knows exactly where they stand, I just can't have another one of those. I recognize your bias against the digital domain. I don't agree with you but I can let your jabs roll off my back. Like the film guys I have total respect for your trade. I wouldn't belittle it at all. It's ashamed that respect isn't returned.

II have entertained a film/digital discussion until I just can't have another. The irony is that as I shoot more and more film, I take more and more tongue lashings from film only guys because they think they just care a little more, just a little better, and slightly above everybody else. It's not a two way street though. I have total respect for them and their passion. They just can't seem to see that because of....well I don't understand what the beef is. I can't do that again now with printing.

 

[Blackcat]

I am not biased against the digital arts or digital photography. I think they are both respectable art forms. I have taken digital imaging classes so I understand some of what goes in to digital prints and I know it also takes a bit of work. I do not believe in any type of hierarchy between the different art mediums.

And I am not sure who you are referring to when you say "printer," I know the artists who pull images off a press are called printmakers. Do digital artists refer to themselves as printers?

As for the matter of editions, I guess we are just on totally different pages but I also feel we may be misunderstanding each other to some degree. I don't agree that limiting editions is a marketing ploy by traditional standards even when applied to modern digital prints. And I understand that in your medium it is possible to print as many as you want, so you want to know why limit yourself. I don't know the answer, but I do think that the more you print, the less valuable each print becomes. Certainly printing off 12,000 of anything is just to make money but I also think at those numbers they are barely more than posters. And I realize that that is my personal feeling and that many artists may not feel the same. However I feel the same way for an edition of 300. I just believe there are too many for them to have any considerable value, regardless of being pulled off a press or not. I am not a professional artist (I do not make a sizable income from my art), gallery owner, print collector, or appraiser, but I wonder what their input would be on the issue of limiting editions and the value of prints. Have you asked any of them?

 

[Blackcat]

So I tried to do a little more research on the topic of editioning digital prints and I found an interesting webpage for photographers that discussed the issue and it includes multiple people's opinions on the matter. I am still not sure that many art professionals would agree, but it does seem that there is a growing number of digital artists who do not agree with limiting editions in the traditional sense. Here is the website:

http://blog.epicedits.com/2008/06/11/what-exactly-is-a-limited-edition-print/

 

[Jay H]

And I am not sure who you are referring to when you say "printer," I know the artists who pull images off a press are called printmakers. Do digital artists refer to themselves as printers?

I dunno. I have a printer and I print prints. Am I a printer? I'd say so but I could see where that is a fluid state.

As for the matter of editions...I also feel we may be misunderstanding each other to some degree. I don't agree that limiting editions is a marketing ploy by traditional standards even when applied to modern digital prints. And I understand that in your medium it is possible to print as many as you want, so you want to know why limit yourself. I don't know the answer, but I do think that the more you print, the less valuable each print becomes.

I think your proving my point. Limiting art is rarely addressed in the context of a carving wearing out. The print quality of the plates is rarely mentioned. It may be urban legend but I thought that was where the idea of a limited edition came from. Instead artist go right toward more prints = less money. I think the opposite could just as easily be true. When you arbitrarily limit the number of prints then you artificially inflate the price and drastically limit the amount of possible customers.

I not only don't limit my prints because there is no logistical reason to do that, I believe my art is more affordable and more desirable and as a result more profitable. What logical reason would I have for intentionally devaluing my work?

There is a photographer who I have totally bought into his theories on modern LE prints as I was deciding how to package my product. I think his opinion can be summed up when he says, "Many photographers artificially limit the number of prints they will produce from a given negative, offer numbered editions, offer limited editions of a given size of print, destroy their negatives, and many other silly games whose objective is to convince you to buy their artwork and pay more for it. I don't. I won't. Either you like and want to buy my work, or you shouldn't."

He is the most prolific writer that I have ever read on the subject. Keep in mind he is a photographer. He is discussing photography and his audience is photographers. He not only discusses LE prints in painful detail but he has also written about art galleries. If you care to read more he says it so much better (and with many more words) than I do.

http://brooksjensenarts.com/What Size is the Edition.pdf

In my gallery there is an image that sells with a great deal of regularity. It's by far the number one selling image in my gallery. I wished it were my photo but it's from another local photographer. He has never limited the size or print amounts of this photo. Just imagine if from day one he printed 25 11x14's of this image then deleted the digital file. How unbelievably stupid would that have been? He's made $1000's off this image and if I have my way he will make $1000's more. It sells for top dollar in-spite of having no limitation. Would he be able to charge double or triple if he limited it? Would his net be higher if it were limited? We may never know and left to guessing we may well disagree. My vote is no on both.

 

[Jeff Rodier]

Blackcat, I was wondering if you could join this other thread running right now. Someone there is in desperate need of your expertise and experience in the limited edition printing market.

Here's the link:
http://www.thegrumble.com/showthread.php?t=43701

 

[Bandsaw]

Prints are made by the artists themselves - the print is the art and there may not be an original. A recently deceased artist from our town whose prints sell in New York and London auctions for around 100,000 printed from linocuts, each print made of 8 or 10 stampings. There is no specific "original painting" - each print is an original and each print is different. Of a series of 50 some are more desirable and valuable because there is more or less ink or better placement of the plates or other issues that just make a more appealing print.

Reproductions are made by printers for artists. In the recent past they were all lithographs printed on a printing press and were all virtually the same.

Limited Edition "editions"- refering to lithographs on a printing press:

About 30 years ago I wanted to publish some prints of an artist I framed for. I knew nothing about the "Limited Edition" thing and sought out and asked some publishers of the time how it all was supposed to work. I was told:

The artist paints the painting and agrees to a publisher selling prints.

The publisher pays to have the prints made.

Both now want some money but there is none to share yet.

So the artist is initially paid by receiving an edition of prints "the Artist's Edition" which he can sell personally at whatever price he decides.

Then to promote the sale of the prints the publisher uses an edition of prints "the Publisher's Proofs" to give away as samples to galleries or charity events or whatever is suitable for promotion.

Then the publisher puts in the hard work to sell the edition of prints paying the artist the agreed amount for each print sold.

And if a print was selling fast a certain number of the edition was pulled and remarqued to increase value - no additional numbers.

That's the way I did it for many years.

But then there is that hot piece that sells out in 3 weeks and you wish the edition was 6 times as big and the thoughts start about how to sell more as we are in business and business is hard.

I never reprinted any image.

Then another situation arose. An artist I work with had one of his pieces published by a publisher. Shortly after the publisher had a fire destroying the prints, and left the business. According to the artist's records 12 prints out of an edition of 350 were sold. After long thought I told the artist that we should do another series and after months of talking 250 more were printed and released in an "Artist's Edition". The story of the lost prints and the fact that this was a second edition was clearly printed out on a card and included with the prints. No one has ever had a negative word. The artist is now getting his suitable profit from his work.

And now we are selling inkjet prints on demand and whatever size the customer wants - but we still want to limit the editions for marketing reasons.

New rules will come into play.