Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] price of art prints (was re: kyle's fine art)
From: "Don Dory" <dorysrus@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:17:08 -0500
References: <3C8D43C3.3020000@shaw.ca> <5.1.0.14.2.20020311211034.03183d00@infoave.net>

I think part of this thread is in response to an editorial in "Lenswork" if
I recall.  What was being promoted was inexpensive art.  The concept is that
the cost of another photographic print is relatively low compared to a
painting so why not do a Wal-mart?  If the price is lower then more people
will buy and appreciate the work in question so the photographer in the end
makes more.

A sub theme of the editorial is that  limited editions make sense to a
gallery but not necessarily the artist.  The arguments logic turns on some
work is more in demand than others so the artist makes money once but the
gallery makes money as the in demand work resells over and over as the price
goes up.

The flip side of this is Crazy Eddy who sold so low the company is gone.

Now where did I put the Nomex?

Don
dorysrus@mindspring.com

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Feliciano di Giorgio <feli@d2.com> (Re: [Leica] price of art prints (was re: kyle's fine art))
In reply to: Message from "Greg J. Lorenzo" <gregj.lorenzo@shaw.ca> (Re: [Leica] price of art prints (was re: kyle's fine art))
Message from Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net> (Re: [Leica] price of art prints (was re: kyle's fine art))