Here’s a curious tale for you: A week ago I was approached by someone interested in art collecting and in art blogging, and particularly in the interaction of the two. The C, as I shall call this beginning collector, put forward the interesting speculation that blogged artworks acquire “an aura of fame” that potentially makes them more salable. Whether that’s true or not, it probably doesn’t hurt the value of an artwork for it to be blogged.
It happens that A&P had come to the C’s attention, and as a way of getting hirs feet wet, the C is considering buying perhaps half a dozen prints of images that have appeared in my posts. My prints are cheap; I’m sure I wouldn’t be writing this post if your paintings, linoleums, quilts, etc. were the same! (But maybe they’ll be next.) The C had good timing, in that just a few days ago I met with a local gallery owner who was enthusiastic about showing my work in her gallery. If that works out, my prices will have to go up, at least for work being sold by the gallery. (Also, the C didn’t know it, but I currently give an unadvertised 20% discount on purchases after the first.)
Now my posted images are a motley assortment, having been selected not necessarily for “quality” but to fit the subject of a post. It’s pretty clear my recent dirt piles bombed, and I won’t even mention the chocolate chip cookie fiasco. I suggested to the C that, if there’s wisdom in crowds, a good selection might be determined by the collective evaluation of you all (meaning ANY AND ALL readers, not only A&P contributors). The C was intrigued by this idea, and though not committed to abiding by your choices, I think s/he would be strongly swayed. S/he certainly hasn’t mentioned any favorites of hirs own yet.
So, for convenience, I’ve compiled below the leading possibilities from each post (which you can revisit by clicking on the title; click on the image to enlarge it). For completeness, I also included in the text above two other images (call them A and B, respectively) that appeared on Mark Hobson’s blog, the landscapist. Please vote for any and all images you care to. Score each that you vote on as a 1, 2, or 3 for top tier, middle tier, lowest tier. Unscored images will be considered to rank somewhat lower. You may find it easiest to cut and paste this template
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S
inserting a 1, 2, or 3 after the letter of each image you want to evaluate.
I’ll do the same myself. I’m very curious whether there will be any consensus picks, and whether my choices resemble yours. Thanks for your help, and I’ll let you know how it all turns out. And of course, I invite comments or suggestions on the whole concept.
C: 41 views
D.
We cannot all be edges. Some of us have to be bridges.
D..
From “Uncertainty,” a song by the Ensemble D’Urbin:
I am quantum mechanical.
I have no sharp edges where
You may find me or
Not. The one place I will never be is
Exactly where you want me to be
Or exactly anywhere else. Sorry, it’s
Heisenberg’s fault.
Okay.
Per Birgit’s request…
A (Title Unknown) — This reminds me of the California central valley where I grew up. A lot of Octobers or Novembers. A quiet, non obvious beauty with a sense of mystery added by fog. Lovely, but something I know too well to be a window on other worlds and visions that I so desire in other people’s art, so tier two.
B (Title Unknown) Architecture. Ugh. But Marvelous color chiaroscuro. Technically impeccable — a characteristic of Steve’s work in general — but not my subject matter, so strictly on personal bias tier three.
Oops, I forgot Karl’s question on edition size. For all of my work to date I’ve set 50 as the limit. This is larger than traditional high-class photography editions, but smaller than many non-photographic print runs. Yes, collectors, be the first to buy now and you can own the world’s entire supply for a mere $1005!
There’s a reasonable case to be made for having no edition limit — there’s certainly no technology issue as in some other forms of printing — but I don’t think I’ll be regretful if any images sell out. I’ll just go back and try to take a better one.
Okay, here’s my take:
Tier 1: A, F, H, K, O and R
Tier 2: D, J(B&W) and P
Tier 3: B, G, and S
Mel,
Thanks! It’s especially gratifying to see K and O getting a little respect, after they were shut out in the early going (see comment 14).
Steve,
I think it is a great idea to simplify the graph by counting 1 for tier one and 0.5 for tier two and O for tier three. But let us wait a while until we get more data.
My response is:
Tier one: A, D, E, F, H, P.
Tier two: B, G, J, M,N, R, S.
Tier three: C, I, K, L, O, Q.
Tomorrow, from work, I will give you my tiered response
From work, I give a tired response :)
You might have tried to restrain yourself on that one.
Karl: David argued some months ago for open editions, I believe. A limited number would seem to be more attractive from a collector’s standpoint.
There are two different sets of considerations here.
I do think that collectors of multiples prefer limited editions. My objection is that, with modern technology, the only reason for an edition limit is to deliberately create scarcity.
There used to be a practical reason that editions were limited. The image on the plate/stone would break down after repeated runs. And prints were handprinted (including photos) so each one required human work.
With digital printing, once you’ve got your printer calibrated and an approved proof, all you do is push a button and tell the printer how many copies you want. Any edition limit, in this case, seems contrived. It’s kind of like when Jack Duganne coined the word Giclee in order to make inkjet prints seem more special (I refuse to call them that). There are possibly market reasons for making limted edition Giclees, but the technology, for me, is more appropriately used for making open edition inkjet prints.
Birgit: different people have different roles on A&P….I see Steve as our cultured, intellectual, critical and sane voice…
Steve: (to David) You might have tried to restrain yourself on that one.
But Steve, then I wouldn’t be fulfilling my role :)
Just beware the editr.
David,
I think the question of editions can be an interesting one. The thought that went into my choice was pretty minimal. You’re quite right that, with digital photos, the scarcity is artificial, but is that a bad thing? Not to suggest any comparison, but I find the impact of, say, an Ansel Adams photograph is much reduced by the plethora of calendars, etc out there. But long before that stage, I feel that as an artist, I don’t want to be too represented by any one image. I want to let them do however they do and then let them go. If making money is the goal, I’d rather try to make a similar but new photograph. Sure, there may be special circumstances that can’t be repeated, but mine don’t generally rely on that, and anyway I’d rather have made something special and scarce than print it over and over. At least that’s how I’m thinking now. I really think the world will manage without print #51. :-)
Birgit,
Since you’re keeping track, I have another favorites choice to relay from anonymous: E, F, and Q.
I need an edge!
—-
The edge is who we are.
If I understand correctly –always a question! — D. would wish the photos to say something more (specifically, directly) about me the photographer, or perhaps about us as a society. Though either or both are worthy aims, I don’t think that’s what my photos are about. It is inescapable that implicitly, indirectly, they are about me/us, but more immediately they are about the world and how I find it. I want to bring the viewer into relation with some aspect of the world and let them take it from there, possibly seeing something that I did but barely sensing my intruding presence. To me this is antithetical to the relationship expressed in
It’s okay for you to say what you want from me
I believe that’s the only way for me to be
exactly what you want me to be.
I don’t want to tell viewers what I want from them, nor do I want viewers who tell me what they want from me. If for no other reason than that I can’t even say what I want from them. That edge simply isn’t there.
Steve, as viewers we get to see the world through your eyes. Your audience will consist of people who are engaged by what you see.
Steve/David,
Forget edge. What about a Momentum?
Geez, I thought I was the physicist here… Just because Heisenberg allows my momentum to be rather precisely defined if my position is very poorly defined, doesn’t mean that it has to be. It depends on the state I’m in.
Considering momentum as involving mass, speed, and direction, I’d have to say that my artistic mass is low, my speed erratic, and my direction indecipherable from the sample provided here. Remember, this is not necessarily my better work (though I like a few), nor are the images in chronological order.
The question is important, but I think the first real data we’ll have to go on will be what I come back with from the Four Corners photo trip I leave on in a week. I’m hoping my pictures will look different from last year’s, but I don’t know how or how much. I have a few ideas, but I’m making no predictions. One thing on my mind, thanks to D. and David, is tangents. I’ll try to keep my eyes open for little waterfalls and crows.
Steve,
This post was too much for me to get my mind around, so let me add congratulations to the pile. And I hope the momentum doesn’t take you over the edge. I mean, Birgit calling you the “cultured, intellectual, critical and sane voice” could ruin you forever. Not to mention all the high-falutin’ mentionings — Heisenberg, Epimenides, Heller, and lyrics from (to me) obscure erudite songsters.
June,
At some point a post collapses under its own weight. If there’s anything of interest left in the debris, perhaps it will be taken up in a later post. But before I make my escape, I’ll just add that the C has selected 6 of the images for prints. Which they are must remain a secret, but I can say that they were not simply the most popular.
My, what a long thread!
But I just wanted to do a follow up. I received the photos I ordered in the mail today, and may I say, “Gorgeous?”
Steve, you are right about the Epson paper. Splendid.
And to everyone, these photos are much better in real life. Fine printing. Diamond sharp. I am very, very pleased.
David,
Limited editions seems to work well for money, why not for art?
Karl, if you set the edition limit as high for artwork as it is for $100 bills, it’s unlikely you’d ever get close to selling out the edition.
Of course, you could create one-of-a-kind currency, like Boggs, but he keeps getting arrested, so you’d be taking a chance.