[Previous entry: "CALL FOR ARTISTS and Authors."] [Next entry: "Paintings That Make Me Hurl"]

09/09/2005: "Limiting Success?"

Have you heard of the woman who always cut off both ends of a ham before putting it into a pot to cook? When asked why, she replied, “That’s the way my mother always does it.” Further investigation revealed grandma started the technique of cutting the ends of her ham before cooking. Her reason was simple; she didn’t have a pot large enough to fit a whole ham.

I equate the practice of limiting edition sizes of digital prints, best known and primarily marketed under the giclée moniker, to cutting off the ends of the ham. The practice of limiting editions has evolved from being due to the physical and financial limitations of the printing process to limiting giclée edition sizes that can be faithfully and endlessly reproduced as a means to artificially create demand.


Knowledgeable art buyers know giclée is just a highfalutin word for digital print. They also realize there are no physical or financial constraints on creating digital prints as with traditional printmaking. Surely then, they understand the practice of limiting edition sizes of digital prints is merely a marketing gimmick.

Don’t get me wrong; I believe the development of the fine art digital print is a marvelous thing for artists and collectors on multiple levels. It will continue to revolutionize how art is created and delivered just as POD (Print On Demand) technology is in music and books. You will continue to see many more self-published artists of all sorts be able to take control of their careers because of POD. Just a few years ago, it would not have been possible for me to affordably self-publish a book with such esoteric content as art print marketing.

The question is why should artists working in giclées eliminate the chance for a huge seller. Every image represents a potential bonanza for them where instead of selling a few hundred pieces they might sell thousands over the course of a career. The problem is in not knowing in advance, which will be the runaway successes. Even those artists who sell out editions lose money when editions are limited. Plus, they disappoint customers who would have otherwise loved to own a certain image. Most often, a single image starts a collector on a path. Spurned a chance to buy, some are lost for good.

None of the other arts intentionally limit sales of works. Granted, live theatre may have limited runs and seating, but it will sell every seat, offer DVDS and extend the run to satisfy demand. Recording artists don’t decide only a few of their fans can purchase their music. Literary works aren’t published in limited editions. Film studios don’t curtail the number of times a Woody Allen film will be seen, sold, or rented for that matter. Oddly, visual artists have come to believe that it is in their best interest to limit how much money they can make from reproductions of their originals.

If artists want to add exclusivity, or demonstrate by signature post printing they saw, touched and approved the print, I applaud the idea. My suggestion is to adopt a new open edition signing convention. Something like artists signing and numbering prints as: 1/oe (open edition); 2/oe; 3/oe and so forth. (Got a better suggestion? Please comment.)
Would collectors shun such a convention? Would prices have to be dramatically lower? I think not. The early adopters could still feel smart they recognized the print or artist quickly and those who prefer to buy when something is established could see the popularity of an image before they committed.

It is the desire of the collector to want to own the art and live with the art that is the dominant factor in the buying decision. They will pay a perceived fair price for a properly marketed print, limited or not. If the emphasis shifted to marketing the art and the artist, and even the giclée process sans than the exclusivity of a limited edition, prices do not have to suffer. Well-educated art patrons are just as likely to buy an open edition giclée of an image they love, as one that is limited.

Open editions might help cut down on the cutthroat Internet pricing wars that some galleries find themselves in for popular artists. This pernicious and pervasive practice plagues the industry and commoditizes limited editions, which ironically creates the opposite effect in limiting the work in the first place.

Today, we inhabit Marshall McLuhan’s Global Village and we must learn adapt to doing business differently as our world evolves. I think limited editions should be left to fine art printmaking techniques where processes logically limit edition sizes. For those who have embraced the giclée process, let’s make them unlimited and give artists a chance at unlimited earnings from reproductions of their masterpieces.

Apologies to readers of my digital newsletter, ArtPrintIssues.com (go to the site to get your free subscription), who previously read this argument. Only because I feel strongly a debate on this topic should be brought an ever-widening audience, I repeat it here. If learning more about the business side of the print market appeals to you, check out my book, How to Profit from the Art Print Market, available at: www.PrintMarketProfits.com . — Barney Davey is art marketing consultant, author and workshop leader.

Replies: 20 Comments

on Sunday, October 2nd, Brad Greek said

Great subject Barney and great responces. I have been giving this whole process alot of thought lately. In the beginning I was thinking in the old way of printing and edition sizes of 500 0r 1000. Due to cost for the run. So when I started getting my paintings scanned and printed in the giclee format I used the larger limited edition sizes. Only to learn later that it was best to start small and work up in edition sizes. As I get more recognized.

Then I got to thinking that with the POD (print on demand)Giclees and the limited editions, that what happens when I die. The edition would never be filled. So the suggestion Barney of the 1oe,2oe,3oe does sound like the ticket. And as someone else suggested that when the demand stops, count up the number sold and that is the edition size.

I really feel that we are in the doorway of a new revolution on how the giclees' are precieved in the artworld. I believe we are the ones that will set the mark for generations to follow. We have to get this right!

I am having just about everything I do scanned for giclees. I'm at @ 60 images thus far. All of them are limited editions of various sizes. I know that this needs to change so that the edition size is regulated and logged so that the collector can keep tabs on where his/her print stands. Older work would or should have a higher edition size then the newer work as the artist gets older. Then again it depends on demand for that image and marketing of that image. A website with current updates on print status could be a great starting point for the self marketing artist. I'll have to work on this.

Thanx Barney...Let's set the standard.

on Friday, September 23rd, walt said

Yes Jim,
Dali liked to cut corners. He was not the most trustworthy of people. By not stayig in control of his work he allowed the frauds to have sway. How much more possible is this today with digital imaging? I think it is easier than ever. There is an entire movement out there that refuses to acknowledge that copyright law is even valid. So recopying and reselling is not just the exception to the rule it is a booming multi-billion dollar business. If digital prints are marketed along the same lines as traditional hand made prints I think the potential for fraud is easier and far greater than ever. Hence Barney's suggestion that digital prints not be sold as investment prints at all. The value will rise and fall with the market but will not obfuscate the difference between a real hand made signed and numbered limited edition. As he said that idea when it comes to digital technology doesn't hunt because an edition of a digital file, instead of being pulled at one printing, may be kept well into two or three upgrades in technology making the last print higher in quality than the first. Numbering an edition becomes moot at that point.

Well, OK. I feel like I've spoken my peace and will leave it there. Maybe someone else has something worth adding but I've nothing more to say on the subject. We will all do what we want to do in the end anyway. Good luck all. Thanks for an interesting subject Barney.

on Friday, September 23rd, Jim said

Definetily the artists integrity is based on trust and the artists word, but that is no different for traditional prints or digital prints.
You may have heard of an artist by the name of Salvador Dali who created many traditional prints, lithos and etchings. A "small" scandal ensued.
Checkout the following web sites (with some quotes from the sites), if any readers are unfamiliar with one of the biggest frauds in traditional printmaking and the art world.
http://www.chicagoappraisers.com/Dali-prints-etchings/
"Over 68% of the Salvador Dali prints sold were fake in some form or another. There were real prints with fake signatures, fake prints with real signatures, and fake prints with fake signatures. The largest fake factories were in New York, Chicago and Hawaii. They all came with fake letters of authentication. An old letter of authenticity means nothing today."
or this site
http://www.rossfineart.com/origart.htm
Dali created many plates for use in producing prints, however Dali himself was not always in charge of the actual printing process and as a result such great numbers of prints were produced that the value of his printed art work is not likely to increase in value for quiet a long time if ever. It is known that Dali would have a whole truck load of paper delivered to him so that he could sign the sheets before they were sent to the printer.

on Friday, September 23rd, walt said

Bravo! I also think digital printmaking is here to stay. Not against it in the least. But unlike working a litho stone which will be reground, the original image lost forever, a digital image can be redone even at different sizes ad infinitem. So what guarantee does anyone have that the "limited" edition is really ever limited. With the older technology it is secure. That exact image could be forged but never duplicated once the stone is cleared. And here I am not talking about anything that uses a photo sensitive transferal but hand work only.

So we come down to the honesty of the artist and or master printer. I'm not second guessing your honesty Jim. But we all know there are other who do not play well with others.

It is a marvelous new technology. It requires new thinking. Rather than allowing possibly unsuspecting buyers to believe they are participating in a time honored process with certain securities built in I think we should be a little more forward thinking. Which is why I believe a clear distinction should be made between the traditional and the new.

Limit all you like. And I wish you and everyone else success...I am also doing some digital prints of my work. But there is a whole can of worms waiting to be opened here that will require new solutions eventually.

on Friday, September 23rd, Jim said

Very interesting discussion.
I am a traditional stone lithographer and have been printing on stones for 25 years. Over the past few years I have been experimenting with digital prints. The technology is amazing and I believe will eventually be as accepted as tradional printmaking. Silkscreen was once just a commercial process and with todays screening technology, thousands of prints can be made before a screen breaks down but still artists limit their editions. Many traditional lithographers are using new techniques in plate lithography where the plates can handle thousands of pulls but still the lithographer limits their editions. I would quite often limit my litho prints to 25 and under just because I wanted to keep the edition small - it had nothing to do with money or howmany I could have printed if I had wanted to.
I disagree that just because you can make thousands of prints you should, that makes no sense to me... there is nothing wrong with making an image limited. It is up to the artist and their number of collectors, their market and on an image by image basis.
Right now I am experimenting with scanning the original in its underpainting stage, then printing my giclee as an underpainting, then painting several of the giclee underpaintings in different ways, and then finishing the original underpainting to a finished painting. I am doing editions of up to 25. All different, all based on the original underpainting but not one the same as the original. Every artists creativity is limitless. I can do prints 10 times bigger than I ever could in litho. I have my own digital printshop set up and I am not sure if I will ever have to endure the costly, health hazard, creatively limiting traditional printshop again.
I am blown away by the potential of Digital Printmaking and encourage all artists to get their feet wet and explore the possibilities and do not be held down by traditional conservative thinkers. Digital printmaking is here to stay.

on Wednesday, September 14th, walt said

Barney said "I don't believe digital prints should be sold as investment art." And I agree. At least when we're talking about the difference between original and reproduction. And yes, as long as we educate the buying public rather than pull the wool over their eyes with false statements or pretentious comparisons then digital or any other kind of repros (I have friends who make a killing off of color copies of their smaller works) should eventually cause the value of those more original processes to rise in comparison. The key is that we educate rather than fool our clientelle.

on Wednesday, September 14th, Barney Davey said

Back in the day when I worked with magazine editors who cared deeply about making proper distinctions and giving things correct nomenclature, the term original graphic was used to connote those prints made by the aritst's hand that were created to be prints. Everything else was a reproduction.

There were open edition prints, which were reproductions of original art. There were posters that meant a printed image with some sort of type or other graphic element included.

The advent of digital printing is changing the way artists work. It is changing how we perceive the whole "print" process. I had a photographer tell me the other day he expected future prints of the same images to actually be better than the first. He expects to become more proficient in manipulating the images, for the software and printing techniques to improve as well. This turns the idea of the low numbers being more valuable due to fidelity on its head.

I contend we turn the idea of limiting any digital, or offset images for that matter, on its head. Why should any artist be limited in how much they can make from an image? It doesn't make sense. The industry is stuck on the antiquated notion that must limit edition sizes to make the art more valuable. A very good giclee printer said to me, "The artist can just paint more." Yes they can, but how fair is that to the artist?

Digital printing is giving artists more freedom than they have ever had to wrest control of their careers. You see the same thing in music where many artists now produce their own work and sell direct in person and over the Internet completely circumventing the traditional distribution system.

The Artist formerly known as Prince used this tactic so well that he was able to become Prince once again. By changing his name to an unpronouncable symbol, he was able to create music he could sell without violating his very restrictive recording contracts. Studios execs thought it was career suicide only to be proven wrong.

Art buyers buy because they want to own the art. They want to live with it. I don't believe digital prints should be sold as investment art. As such, I don't see the reason for limiting how many can be sold. I believe a fair price, even substantial price can be gotten for a good piece of art. What it requires is for art marketers to catch up with the technology revolution that is overtaking the way prints are made. POD (Print On Demand) is not going away. It will continue to take a larger piece of the pie in art, music and books. Some film execs are now debating whether to have DVD and theatrical releases coincide. This from an industry that a few short years ago viewed the development of the VCR as their worst nightmare.

We should be striving to make selling art fun and profitable instead of clinging to outdated modes of marketing. Interestingly, the development of digital printing has to make the traditional forms of printmaking such as etchings, woodblocks and so on that much more valuable.

on Wednesday, September 14th, gabriella said

BradMM - you have made a clear distinction here between what cosnstitutes an original and reproductions. Thanks for that!

on Wednesday, September 14th, Brad Michael Moore said

gabriella
Individually altered Giclee’? How do you touch up a Giclee? Is it like altering a Polaroid? My point is, as a photographer, using my own analogue or digital images to make individual reproductions to order, or for exhibition, that these reproduced Giclee’ prints do have equal or greater current day value the same as if I had reproduce these same images as gelatins, Type C, or Type R prints. Nothing muddy here except the idea that a Giclee is not as valuable as a piece of original fine art. If you believe that, then you have missed the digital age and what it has thrust upon us as artists and the vendors of art materials. Kodak, for instance, is stopping production soon of their most famous black & white films. Its because digital raw 16 & 32 bit film capture and pigmented ink processes have come so far as to outdate and live as long as the older gelatins, Type C or Type R prints. Older images (Type C or Type R prints) by any number of master photographers, dead or alive, created in their day may have greater intrinsic value because of their age. There may be a different standard we talking about here if your art is made of oil or acrylic and reproduced into a Giclee’, but we’re talking two different animals here. Bottom line, I reproduce one of my more popular negatives today – digitized and reproduced via the Giclee’ – and I can charge more for it than when I pulled a C-Print of the same negative. Only the hardened, ignorant collector, or blinded purest welded to the older methods will think otherwise. You know the train traveled from sea to shining sea long before we flew such a route – some people still like to drive. Original art is just that – no matter how its produced – ink, pencil, oil, photo. If I print 10 Giclee prints from one negative & and each one has been created from scratch – meaning I don’t use my original settings, but instead create each image via a separate file, a separate process, a separate inspiration – then each is an original work of art more valuable than had I used only one creative pulse and knocked 10 reproductions of it – it don’t even matter what reproduction process I use.

on Tuesday, September 13th, gabriella said

What Brad and Walt suggest is that individually altered giclees be a non-edition. There is already a practice in place where artists "touch up" giclee reproductions, and call them an "artist embellished series" for which they then ask quite a bit of money. This further muddies the environment of "prints", and buyers believe, mistakenly, that the embellished reproduction is therefore worth more, and then has collectible and resale value. is this not a form of "con"?

on Tuesday, September 13th, walt said

I like BMM's solution. Each giclee as an individual, artist reworked piece. Signed. No number is really needed as each is an original variation on the initial image. This gets the giclee process outside the machine reproduced mode and into creative mode. Cheers Brad!

I'm not against signing mechanically reproduced prints. I will sign anything if it will bring me a little cash. Not that I'm asked to do so all that often. I just want to see a clear distinction between 'original' by the hand of the artist and 'reproduced' by a machine.

on Tuesday, September 13th, Brad Michael Moore said

Nice blog Barney and interesting comments. Still, everyone is taking for granted that all Giclee prints (Pigmented Ink Prints, as John Paul Caponigro likes to call 'em) are one and the same - not so. As an artist, no longer printing in the darkroom, pulling images from one-shot chemical runs, I treat Giclee's the same as I did my older color photos. Not as exact editions, but each as something reconsidered from scratch, reinterpreted, every time I reprint the image... It keeps things fresher - I don't do traditional editions - not that I wouldn't for a special holiday or occasion, show or gallery. What's perfect to me today may not be so tomorrow when someone's advise, or my own study or exploration, brings me to newer conclusions over the finding and interpretation of an older image. Let there be editions - but please don't limit the invention of Giclee' to being something limited. Giclee' is as stable and variable as the artist's hand who takes the time to make it.

on Monday, September 12th, Hyacinthe Baron said

HYACINTHE BARON, www.wwar.com, Sept. 10th, 2005

Lithography is the result of a printing process, usually done on an offset press.
A stone lithograph was always exactly what it implies. A master printer would rub and grind the surface of a limestone until a desired texture was achieved. Then a master printer or stone lithographer would ink the stone and pull an edition by hand, one at a time, watching the ink carefully and making adjustments as needed. Unfortunately only certain quarries produced limestone of sufficient quality and in the late 70’s the supply was wearing out. Even students learning the pure techniques were left to work on faulty stones.
Something new was needed. In the early 80’s a master printer, Lynton Kistler, altered an ancient offset press imported from France and pioneered the use of textured aluminum plates which emulated the stone texture. He was able to effectively produce “original” lithographs on a press in limited editions.
In both cases the printers applied a shellac coating to the stone and plate so not another print could ever be produced, thereby qualifying the existing edition which was of course immediately signed and numbered by the artist with a certain limited number assigned as printer’s proofs and artist’s proofs and occasionally State I proofs if the artist were to go back and make any changes before the edition was pulled.
Today the archival printer’s proofs pulled by Kistler at his atelier are in the Smithsonian, (including John Lennon’s Bag One Suite as well as the many sold out editions I did with him as well as) a gift collection from Jack Lord of Hawaii Five-O, an avid art collector.

Color reproductions of paintings were always considered posters as the hand of the artist was nowhere to be seen and numbers were not limited.
However, since an artist can only produce one original, and large editions are usually not printed on the best paper, smart art marketers found ways to create a value for painting reproductions by first using the giclee process, (I have many artist friends who turned their basements or attics into “glue rooms” for applying the Modge Podge acrylic to the print or poster) implying that a “hand”, and not necessarily the artist’s, had indeed touched the piece. They then raised the price on these “giclees” which had more value because they actually looked like they were 3 dimensional with brushstrokes.
Collectors have always valued any printed medium which bears the hand of the artist and especially the artist’s signature. I have actually had my signature included in celebrity auctions. To such collectors it matters not that there are others who share their love for a particular piece so long as they have an idea how many others there are.
Everyone knows the difference between a poster(usually a large enough print run on cheap paper to make any sales worthwhile) and a color controlled ink matched offset lithograph printed in a numbered run on a good quality paper. Such prints serve to make the image of a very expensive one of a kind original work available, and enable collectors of an artist’s work to add a work signed by the artist to their collections at reasonable prices. A certain “Painter of Light” will even add a dollop of fresh paint to a reproduction when a collector buys it.

As a young woman I bought a Gauguin print of The Moon and the Earth, glued it to a large grey cardboard and stained that to look like a frame. It cost me $1.00 but made me feel like a million dollars and inspired and empowered me to be an artist. If by some chance the artist had signed it, it would have been worth at least that. Didn’t Picasso know it and he signed napkins and gave them away as gifts.

Unlimited editions of reproductions fall into the category of decorative framing and art appreciation for the masses.

Limiting a signed edition of artist signed offset reproductions is a time honored tradition practiced by all the Impressionists and even by Rodin who printed and signed postcards of photographs of his sculptures and distributed them all over the world. With the advent of the internet, artists post their images, and while ALWAYS retaining their copyright are basically offering unlimited access to the public arena. In other words anyone with a computer and printer access can download a beautiful color image of an artist’s image and frame it, without permission. BUT THEY WILL NOT HAVE THE ARTIST’S SIGNATURE. No exchange is made between the artist and the “collector” as we deem anyone who desires an artist’s image. And there in lies a very important piece of the art market puzzle which artists must be aware of.
The art market needs to benefit the artist producers who are usually limited in the number of works they can originally produce and to do so in innovative ways. More power to the artists. Give the artist some edge.
Integrity is inherent in a genuinely conceived visual work of art in any medium. Validity is the result of originality and creativity and when achieved the appeal is universal. An art work will take on a life of its own. The artist is the facilitator. The art marketer is the announcer.

on Monday, September 12th, Andrew said

Walt, I follow and agree with pretty much everything you're saying. Dishonesty in the selling of an unlimited item certainly smells bad to me. Writing OE on the print seems like a straightforward stance.

on Monday, September 12th, jose said

An interesting blog Barney and very interesting reactions. it has made stop to think in new ways about the matter. thanks.

on Sunday, September 11th, walt said

Andrew,
From a purely marketing point of view youa re right. Some collectors want to be in on the beginning of things. But I would argue that we are taking a technical fact and blurring the lines just to make a sale here. So many people don't believe artists are for real most of the time as it is. Any intellectual dishonesty, in my opinion, muddies the water. The reason a number 1 ws the most important in hand pulled prints is because it is simply the best print. Every print thereafter gets a little fuzzier. I really agree with the defacto premiss of Barney's blog which is that hand pulled prints and digital prints be they giclees, iris or bubble jet, like a xerox is a different animal all together and needs a system that clarifies that difference. Being dishonest doesn't do it for me. Call me old fashioned if you like. Call me naive and tell me I have no business sense. Say it's a new world, get with the times...say anything you like...but I believe in being honest about the value of something-- especially with a client/collector. The market will ultimately define when a digital edition is over as it has in every other form of commercial production. When people quit buying them you're done. Count them up. That's how many were in the edition.

On the other hand the first digital print ever done will have serious collecting value. And maybe a few later 1sts in that genre. But now that digital prints are everywhere I personally believe that to create a "bubble" to up the value is dangerous.

Why not do some other incentive like a second smaller free print for the first 10 prints purchased, rather than pretend that digital is the same as original hand pulled? The more we blur the lines between things an artist touches and things that are machine reproduced the more we hurt ourselves in the end. Ultimately the hand pulled print should have more collectible value.
I sell a few digital prints of my work if someone really wants an image but can't afford a drawing, woodcut (the only other form of printing I usually do) or a painting. I never pretend they are a limited edition. I would feel really pretentious about that. Cause I know the difference.

on Saturday, September 10th, alison hale said

Hey thanks so much it makes a great deal of sense
and takes away the blurred area away that ive been struggling with for quite some time now thats kept me from getting on with it.
regards alison

on Friday, September 9th, Andrew said

I'd want to argue the point, Walt, that numbering an open edition isn't needed, because I do think number one, or even number ten, of a series that ends up being in the millions has a certain cache. The hardest ones to sell are going to be the first ones, and I'd bet there are collectors out there who would love to have been onto something before anyone else. That's about it, though, because everything else you said is right on the mark.
Barney, this blog's a good one. There is a certain feeling of excitement I get when I hear someone talk about a good idea, and I got that feeling the second I finished reading your blog. It made me want to jump up and get to work on something that I could call an OE, though that's hard in my media. I felt the need to work on something SO good, and SO meaningful, that it could become something sensitive art collectors just had to have. Reading your blog gave me a bit of that feeling I had when I first hit the streets. Good one.

on Friday, September 9th, Danielle Politi said

I always like when you blog...I always learn something :)

on Friday, September 9th, walt said

Here here! All commercial printing processes have no need to limit editions whether giclee or offset lithography. As you say Barney, the more primitive hand techniques, true lithography, etching and engraving, woodcuts, lino cuts and silk screen have natural and technical limitations to the process which limits editions. Their value does improve because only so many will ever be printed before the plate or stone is struck or the fibers of the silk screen clogs and looses the image. But a giclee or offset, because it uses a photo process can be reprinted as long as there is a market. Frankly, unless the artist hand works the screen the silk screen process can be unlimited as well.

The serious collector who buys a giclee most likely is only buying to see if he will be able to live with the real thing and may come back to purchase the original at a later time.

Most buy giclees becuase they can't afford to buy the original. If they are fooled by the idea that this is a limited edition they don't really understand the value of a hand pulled print. Their ignorance is being taken advantage of.

As to signing with an open edition mark? What's the point as #1 is no better than #301,849,532? It is only the signing that adds any value at that point. I've always felt commercial print dealers and the artists who work with them were dishonest in calling an offset lithographically printed photo of a painting or drawing an "original" or even a "lithograph". It confuses the issue about what a signed original print is altogether.

Good topic Barney.