Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/04/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Apr 8, 2013, at 8:54 PM, Adam Bridge wrote: > But now, when we work entirely in digital, when any number of copies can > be made at very small cost, does having a limited edition make any sense > at all? Would you destroy an original RAW file (for example) to guarantee > that you'd done a limited edition? > > I'm left with a bad feeling. Maybe he wants a new M? > > Anyway, am I off base here? What are your thoughts? There are, and always have been, many different levels of "print making." As in every area of commerce integrity comes into play. The integrity of the artist/printmaker? the printer? the publisher? the agent/dealers? all. The actual process whether darkroom, inkjet, lithograph, woodcut, intaglio, or silkscreen; whether printed with an ink roller and a spoon or on some sort of press; or any other technique is not the main issue. The terms: "Limited Edition" and "First Edition" have meaning; a history; a tradition; and deserve to be used honorably to preserves the integrity of all involved in the production, distribution and sale of the editions. Limited Editions require numbers to establish the stated "limits." First (and subsequent) Editions require notations establishing their numerical sequence. It also helps to have an artist's signature on the print - establishing it as "author ized." My read of the Eggleston judgement makes perfect sense within the tradition of Limited and Sequential Editions. Had Eggleston pulled a Second Limited Edition of Dye Transfer Prints at exactly the same size, paper, etc. One would have to question the integrity of that decision - and its effect on the "market value" of the Original Edition. This New Edition of much larger prints on different paper, using an altogether different printing process, should have little to no effect on the "market value" of the Original Dye Transfer Edition. In all likelihood this New Edition will probably enhance the value of the Original Edition (in ways similar to the ever increasing value of a First Edition - over subsequent editions of our most prized authors). Since that Original Edition this artist has advanced in reputation and historical stature; with concomitant growth in his base of collectors. The more people collecting Eggleston - the more valuable each Dye Transfer Print in that Original Limited Edition - supply and demand. The misunderstanding seems to rest in the assumption that a "Limited Edition" means that One and only one Limited Edition will ever be published from any given Negative, Plate, Block, Stone, Screen, etc. While that may very well be the case; there have always been exceptions. The history of a plate, wood block, lithographic stone and/or negative can be longer than the artist's life. Sometimes even within the artist's lifetime changes are made to the plate with new prints being made, with new dates and new edition numbers. see: <http://www.chicagoappraisers.com/rembrandt-history.html> Bottom line: Documentation, Provenance, Signatures, Integrity of Artist, Printmaker, Printer, Publisher, Imprimatur, Dealer, Agent, Museum, Collector will determine the monetary and historical value of any particular artifact - whether a unique one-off or some sort of multiple. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist