Weird feeling

Create a Post
F

Framecrazy

CGF, Certified Grumble Framer
Joined
May 7, 2008
Posts
178
Loc
Texas
I bought an original from an artist several years ago and I just saw they are having prints made of it. All of the other originals I own are from artist before they were on professional labels so they couldn't be printed without me. It feels strange to know that my painting is going to be in other peoples houses. Yes, I know its mushy gushy of me. I always knew I didn't own the rights to it and it is a small edition of 125. I guess it's a good thing.
 
I tell artists that if they scan their originals and keep open the possibility of making prints in the future, it's best to let whoever buys the original know that this is a possibility.
Many people would be glad that their original had been turned into prints, but you never know how they'll respond if informed retroactively. It seems best to get a scan of your original before it ever leaves your hands, and to let people know up front.

We had something else happen several years ago that I was really uncomfortable with. I worked at a gallery here in town that sold limited edition landscapes by a photographer from out of town. Her work is lovely, and she's in the American Photography Hall of Fame, whatever that is. The editions were usually between seventy five to a hundred and fifty prints, and her work was popular enough that some sold completely out. That gallery closed in 1999 and I went to work where I do now. She followed me there and we began carrying her work. She lives about five hours away, and only came once a year. The next time she came, she had several of those earlier photos with her, but with no numbers on them. There are quite a few folks in town who bought them with number, thinking they were worth more as it was a limited edition, and I told her I wasn't comfortable selling more photos from those sold out editions. I know it's just photos and not something like hand-pulled lithos, but it still seemed like a betrayal of confidence.

From what I can see on her website, she's still selling those images with no numbers, and I feel sad about not carrying her in our town, but it just didn't seem right to do so. A person needs to either limit their edition and stick to it or not number it in the first place. I know this notion has been blown out of the water by certain well-known artist(s) in recent years, but it still matters.
 
This sort of thing has always gone on in the trade and to my mind it is very naugthy. I have seen instances of a 'limited edition' being published alongside an open edition. Same image, but usually the publisher alters to format slighty on the o/e. Makes it smaller or does a printed remarque on the l/e. Either way it is really not the thing to do IMHO. It's just being greedy. Ultimately it dilutes the demand for the prints. Also, feathers can be ruffled if a person who purchased a limited edition later sees the indentical print for sale at a fraction of the price. They might even demand a refund from the gallery on the basis of misrepresentation and in all honesty they would have due cause.
A few 'artists proofs' on top of the edition are acceptable but no more than about 10 copies can really be justified.

Regards owning an original that the artist later publishes, I say it was generally a good thing. Depending on the artist, it could increase the value of the original considerably.:)
 
Shayla's example is why I say that any limited edition must have the plate, negative or digital file destroyed after the printing to be truly limited.

In traditional print making methods the plate was naturally destroyed in the printing process or was scored or gouged after the final prints were run. New digital processes require a direct act by the artist or publisher to guarantee that the ability to make additional prints does not exist. Otherwise, IMO, the edition is in no way limited.

Shayla, I applaude you for sticking to your scruples.
 
Thanks for the encouragement, Dave. I appreciate it.

It's hard nowadays, since these new technologies allow for an unlimited amount of prints to be made. And on an 'as needed' basis. It used to be that there was the 'original' and the prints from that original. The line has become so blurred these days. When there's no plate to be destroyed, making one is just as easy as making fifty zillion. I used to chuckle at the good Bev D. when she would make a limited edition of 48,000. Why not just do a limited run of six billion and cover everyone alive? But I'd still rather have huge numbers than have artists who sell a numbered edition, then blow it out of the water by selling the same exact image afterward. TK blew the barn doors wide open with this one in the nineties, and it's too bad. But the truth is, the only way he succeeded is because consumers and the market supported that undermining act with their pocketbooks. The only way that rules of conduct survive, whether in the art world or society as a whole is if the members of that group uphold and respect them. Once that self-governance erodes, it's a pretty quick ride to chaos.

It seems to me that we have no control over these national artists selling out in such ways. But when there's a local or regional artist, who your own customers have supported with good faith purchases, if we don't speak up to those artists, who will? I'm very non-combative, so was able to talk about this with the artist very calmly without creating a stand-off. I can't control whether she keeps selling them elsewhere, but I can affect whether our shop carries her work.
 
The Bev Doolittle editions were often done on a pre-order basis. The publisher would anounce the print and a cut-off date for orders. Then wait to see how many orders they got and print that many. Quite a cunning strategy. I seem to remember 'Scared Ground' went to an edition of 69,000. Can you imagine signing that lot? I stopped dealing in prints years ago. Can't say I regret that decision.;)

Still can't see the injuns.:shrug:
 
Lord, I write some long posts. :faintthud:

LOL, Peter. Have to say, I'm happy not to be selling them anymore either. We have a few by regional artists, but don't do any of the big houses like Greenwich and Hadley. There's a frame shop thirty miles from here that does. My people who like them go there, then bring them to me to design.
 
Out of courtesy, the artist should have notified you either before you purchased it or at the time it was being printed.

Shayla you did the right thing! This has been a pet peeve of mine for years. Somebody needs to write a book on ethics and distribute it to everyone selling their art. Some artists simply do not know or understand. Others, just dont care.
 
The artist told me when I bought it there was a possibility it would be printed. I knew what I was getting into, just caught me off guard to see the prints for sale.

That's not a bad idea about a book of art ethics. Not only ethics but procedures and what not to do. call it....
"How to get ahead in the art world without pitsing everyone off" by Gertie Spomerty
 
I wonder if we could get T.K. to paint a little something for the cover?
 
Oh, oh! (hand in the air) Can I have Number 1/40,000? Please, please! With these machine produced prints, the first one is always so uniquely different than the last 39,999. :popc:
 
Six years ago I had a limited run of a painting of my home town that I did in my teens. I had the plate destroyed after the run. I would never consider reprinting the image again, because I feel it would be unfair to the owners of the signed and numbered prints. Of course painting is not my soul source of income. I have some original pieces I have purchased and the artists have made reproductions with my knowledge, but some artists don't know me. I guess I'm on the side of the artists, because they created the piece in the first place. Just my humble opinion. :beer:
 
Your humble opinion is noted and is just as important as ours Mikesshop, I think we all just agree that it should be a solid business agreement from start to finish on everyone's end.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top