One of a Kinds

[Cheryl]

What are the real options for selling one of a kind items? Is it possible to wholesale them, other than to galleries? What about artisan.com ( I think that's the name) or guild.com?

[Marty]

Selling through anyone else involves some sort of wholesaling; they'll have to recover their costs somehow, doesn't really matter if it's consigned or sold outright.
Guild is a 50/50 deal and they do carry one-of's.
What other "real" options did you have in mind?

[Cheryl]

other than my good fairy (where is that darn woman?) swooping down and leaving me checks, I was wondering...guess I was thinking about you and Liz Mears, more so Liz...at W/S shows are you selling the actual work or taking orders for future (and hence replicable) work?

[Marty]

Cheryl- Both. At shows I will sometimes sell one-ofs and ask if I can ship after the show. Then I can take orders on a similar piece. If someone's interested, we'll discuss how similar/different the new one will be and I'll make it and send it. If the project is interesting and maybe takes me in a new direction, I won't take a deposit and I'll send the work out on approval (if they like it they pay, otherwise they send it back and either we try again or not). If it's a known quantity then they'll pay half (and half on delivery) or all up front I'll do this with production stuff too, every piece is different.

I would guess that Liz operates in much the same way, you could ask her.

Marty

[Dani]

Most of the work I've done for galleries was one-of-a-kind. Especially since many of our area galleries have calls for theme shows. Do you have that sort of a situation you can tap into in your area?

[Dennis Brady]

A merchant's attitude towards one-of-a kind work will depend mostly on the kind of shop they operate. Commission galleries prefer one of a kind. Craft Galleries generally sell much higher volumes, buy outright, and reject one-of-a-kind work. They'll experiment with buying your work in the hope that if it sells they'll be able to buy more. Their experiment is only worth undertaking if they know they'll be able to get another of something that has now proven to sell. That's not possible is everything you make is different. Many artisans have lost sales ONLY because they told the store owners everything they make is different. That is NOT what most store owners want to hear.

Many artisans refuse to do production work, some do nothing but, and others have found a comfortable compromise between the two. With few exceptions, the more production oriented the artisan, the higher the income.

"If it isn't worth doing copies, it isn't worth doing any".

[Sara]

Many artisans refuse to do production work, some do nothing but, and others have found a comfortable compromise between the two. With few exceptions, the more production oriented the artisan, the higher the income.

"If it isn't worth doing copies, it isn't worth doing any".

Dennis, this philosophy is something all artists need to read and understand. thanks for writing it so concisely.

The word "production" has been given such a bad rap hasn't it! We've been doing the dreaded production dance for many years. Sure we make multiples yet our work has grown and evolved. You would be amazed, nah maybe not, how many turn their noses up or scrunch their faces when we talk about how many of a particular piece we make. sure we work small yet that hasn't stopped us for defining and redefining and continuing to make each tiny piece better over the years, and we've got the rogue's gallery to prove it

I believe that once an 'artist' has developed a style nothing is truly one of a kind. There is a voice that runs through all the work by that particular artist isn't there. It's more about finding that particular voice and quality of work that is more important, to me, than trying to be able to do only one of a kind work and I personally believe that when the focus is put on finding that 'sweet production spot' instead of finding a particular thread or voice the person is simply chasing that tiger's tail. People recognize our work not because it's one of a kind but because of the quality, vision and the joy it gives. And on that high falutin note . . .



thank you Calvin and Hobbes, for setting all of us straight

[Dennis Brady]

I started off doing one ofs and commissions but quickly learned this was the route to poverty - so selected a different road map. Never regretted it. Now I have the luxury of being able to alternate on both paths. The production work feeds and supports the business, leaving me time to experiment and innovate. Something has to finance the R&D.

I've never understood (and years ago gave up trying to) the snobbish attitude by "artists" to production work. Some of the finest artists (in all mediums) have done production. It doesn't have to be a factory operation running off thousands at a time, but can be small run Limited Editions of as few as 5. This whole attitude of "originals only" is silly. Even the art industry has accepted that original paintings can't support a painter or a gallery. It's the prints that do that. Whether it's glass casting or litho prints, modern technology allows us to make multiples that are each of the same quality standard as the original. The ONLY justification for one ofs is snob appeal. Personally I fee the same way towards Limited Edition. There're not in any way higher quality, so there's no legitimate reason for them to be more valuable than large production run posters or castings - or anything else.

I'd compare it to the music industry. If Celine Dion (or any performer) produced a new CD and announced that it was to be offered for sale at $1,000. each because they were stamping only a limited edition of 100, they'd become an industry joke. My personal opinion of the one of "artists" is that they usually lack the skill level to duplicate and rely more on happenchance than skill. To make 2 (or 20) identical copies requires SUBSTANTIALLY more skill than making one good one.

If it's good, it's worth repeating. The first one is done to see if it's worth repeating. It's if it's not worth repeating, don't - sell it as "one-of-a-kind".

[Cynthia]

I don't think production work is less significant, important or valuable than one of a kinds, or vis a vis. These approaches are simply suited for different styles of working. I could put my work into production and I would be much better off financially if I did. I could sell more work to more venues at a lower cost to me, my galleries and then to the customers...but my focus isn't about making the big bucks. That isn't how I define success for myself. I don't like to do production, it doesn't interest me to make patterns from a good design and repeat that pattern. I am not suited to that style of working. It isn't a value judgement or choice that I think somehow elevates me as an "artist", or that someone who is good at procuction is lower on the totem pole of glass workers...it's a personal style.

I do series, as do most artists. A particular theme/concept/design... is worth exploring and altering until it's played out or has evolved into something entirely different. That's the part of the work that floats my boat...to take a concept and rather than reproduce it, let it evolve and grow. That is simply a different way to work than taking a successful design and repeating it. Not better, not worse, not snobbish and not elitist...just different.

This approach keeps me going, keeps me interested and keeps my desire to do the work moving forward.

Dennis wrote:

..."If it isn't worth doing copies, it isn't worth doing any"...The ONLY justification for one ofs is snob appeal...

I started off doing one ofs and commissions but quickly learned this was the route to poverty - so selected a different road map. Never regretted it. Now I have the luxury of being able to alternate on both paths. The production work feeds and supports the business, leaving me time to experiment and innovate. Something has to finance the R&D.

I've never understood (and years ago gave up trying to) the snobbish attitude by "artists" to production work...

I wish I could do what you have done and still love what I do. I don't do production work, but that isn't a snobbish attitude, it's simply about what works for me and keeps me interested and progressing with what I want to do and where I want it to go. For me it isn't about making the big bucks, it's about loving the process.

The info you give is invaluable and helps all of us make some decisions about the direction we want to take our work, particularly if we are trying to make a living at this. I just wish there wasn't the need to tear someone elses approach down when it differs from your own.

[Dennis Brady]

"I just wish there wasn't the need to tear someone elses approach down when it differs from your own."

It wasn't my intent to denigrate anyone's approach or to suggest mine (or any other) was superior - only to strenuously counterpoint the commonplace argument that "real artists" don't do production work. Whether what you produce is or isn't art has nothing to do with how many copies (or lack of) you chose to produce. The difference is only in the way you choose to work.

Producing only one-of-a-kind originals, instead of thousands of copies, no more denotes a higher calibre of work that does the reverse. Just different.

[Barbara Muth]

"Producing only one-of-a-kind originals, instead of thousands of copies, no more denotes a higher calibre of work that does the reverse. Just different.

Dennis, I agree that production does not define whether or not work is art. I imagine most artists would agree with you.

I do believe that there is a rather large segment of the buying public that likes thinking that they have bought something unique, that no one else will own. In my opinion a lot of the value judgements attached to one of a kind versus production work come not from the artists but from the consumers.

Barbara

[Cynthia]

Because the negativity of this post really sticks in my craw, I have to respond point by point since I have a vastly different view than Dennis Brady presents. I'll probably wish I had shut up...but so it goes. Passion has it's own rewards and punishments and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

...This whole attitude of "originals only" is silly. Even the art industry has accepted that original paintings can't support a painter or a gallery. It's the prints that do that. Whether it's glass casting or litho prints, modern technology allows us to make multiples that are each of the same quality standard as the original....The ONLY justification for one ofs is snob appeal. Personally I fee the same way towards Limited Edition. There're not in any way higher quality, so there's no legitimate reason for them to be more valuable than large production run posters or castings - or anything else.

Have you never seen the difference between a hand crafted, solid piece of furniture compared to a mass produced, stapled and glued one; A decal transferred image to decorate the rim of a piece of porcelain compared to a hand thrown and painted one?

The first statement quoted above is a mistaken understanding of what an original is and what limited editioning is all about. It's also a mistaken understanding of how most, if not all of the printmaking processes are done. My experience with casting is the same as with lithography and etching, which is that the mold form or plate degrades with repeated use...so the quality of the work is degraded along the process. The editions are limited to the level where the quality of the reproduction remains acceptable. A limited edition print starts out as an image on stone or zinc plate (as examples) and was intended to be run in limited multiples from the start.

Lithography is as old as stone (pun intended), prints made from lithography, etching or other printmaking processes (even the screening process) degrade with each successive run. Giclee (a new modern technology in printmaking) is a reproduction process that does achieve archival quality reproductions without the degredation of quality from the original that occurs in litho or etched plates, but that process is the only one I am aware of that retains the qualities of the original without degrading in the printing process.

Prints such as poster prints (like those Monet posters that you can get at a museum store as an example) don't even come close to the quality found in originals from medium to paper as well as process. Color correction is non existent and attention to detail (other than registration) is not an issue for these reprints. Even the process of lithography can't maintain the image quality of the first-off, (A/P or original) printed image. Typically a reproduced image is attractive to a different market than an original. There's a market for the plates when available especially as they have been marked to keep them from being imporperly reused. Poster prints or mass produced 2-D images are being sold to a different market than the audience who is interested in original work that is a one of a kind, or limited editioned.

The gallery that is being supported by painters and painters that are being supported by their work aren't rareties. They are selling a different product than the craft or gift gallery. Thier audience/market is present and is the market you are proporting doesn't exist. They are out there as evidenced by the mulitudes of galleries that exist and succeed in selling original art....not posters.

...there's no legitimate reason for them to be more valuable than large production run posters...

Poster art isn't the same as prints, and limited editions are a printmaking process that relates to the fact that the plates do degrade and only limited numbers can be run. As far as marketability...as Barbara noted... it has a lot to do with limited availablity, uniqueness and quality (paint on canvas, or printing inks run off a series of stones or zinc plates that were hand drawn, etched, inked, rolled and pressed...registered, re-inked and pressed....) vs. an auto press reproduced poster that spits out thousands a minute of magazine quality repros.

I'd compare it to the music industry. If Celine Dion (or any performer) produced a new CD and announced that it was to be offered for sale at $1,000. each because they were stamping only a limited edition of 100, they'd become an industry joke. My personal opinion of the one of "artists" is that they usually lack the skill level to duplicate and rely more on happenchance than skill. To make 2 (or 20) identical copies requires SUBSTANTIALLY more skill than making one good one.

You are comparing apples to oranges. You pay $15 (or the Canadian equivalent) for a CD, but what does a ticket to a live performance cost? Some seats do indeed cost $1000.00 or more. Should you expect a different experience from a live performance than from a CD? You pay to see Celine in person perform her art and you only get to see it once, but your ticket is going to cost you between $80-$100 dollars for the cheap seats. People are paying for the performance she will give them that night and that night only. Is she being a snob? and elitist? An industry joke?

You picked a great example actually of a studio artist versus a performing artist. The studio artist has the opportunity of being able to hone the work to the desired result in many many takes and tracks. The studio artist doesn't perform live, but the talent isn't less than the artist who does live one of a kind performances. But the one of a kind live performer is capable of and has the opportunity of impromptu jamming and improv to take an existing form and to move it into a new and different direction.

Are you equating skill level of being a good craftsman to the skill level of a good artist. Apples and oranges. Making 20 of the same thing talks about the skill of a pattern-maker, an ability to work with precision and repeat a process. That indeed is highly skillful and should be respected and applauded, but SUBSTANTIALLY more skilled than the person who makes one successfully composed and well crafted piece? How is that? That is like saying the patternmaker or craftsman is more skilled than the artist who composed the work.

Using glass work and workers as an example, Chihuly doesn't fabricate any of his work. It's done by gaffers at his instruction. His conceptions are created or fabricated by the gaffers...He doesn't blow the work, yet it's still his compostions and concepts that are being executed by various fabricators. Who is the more skilled? I would argue neither. The work wouldn't get done without that compliment of skills, both technical and artistic.

One who choses to do one of's isn't incapable of fabricating multiples.

If it's good, it's worth repeating. The first one is done to see if it's worth repeating. It's if it's not worth repeating, don't - sell it as "one-of-a-kind".

This is like saying, "Those who can....Do. Those who can't.... Teach". The sentiment behind the comment is pretty clear.

I've said way too much. DB won't be reading this post. It goes on too long , But I just had to respond with the fullness of feeling that I took these statements to hold. Call it a lack of impulse control on my part.

I clearly was set off by this post. I hope my view is clear though. I don't have a value system that says the producers of "one of's" (my world) are more or less valued, talented, skilled or important than the "production" folks. But that they are simply doing the work that fits their love for a process, an ethic, aesthetic and desire for the end result that fits. That those who are fabricating multiples are doing the very same thing...Simply doing the work that fits their love for process, an ethic, aesthetic and desire to achieve an end result that fits.

[Don Burt]

clip
I've said way too much. DB won't be reading this post. It goes on too long
Clip

Don't know if D.Brady will read it, but I did. I agree with you Cynthia. But I appreciate D. Brady's point about reproducable art being more challenging sometimes too. To be able make something twice indicates mastery. To infer that not-making-it-twice indicates that you're a snob, are ugly, and have bad breath, is a practice of Dennis' he uses to liven-up discussion. Infuriating isn't it?

[Nancy Juhasz]

Cynthia, I agree with you totally. Thanks for speaking up.

[JackHealy]

Great thread!

We have these conversations quite frequently with our artists. My experience is that the more successful artists who are satisfying income requirements and their own personal creative goals are doing a mix of both "one off" and "production".

As a side note, I would add Glass Artists Gallery to the list of companies who can deal with one offs - we use these photos in our resource as a "representation" of what an artist is capable of. We do a great deal of custom work and these photos are invaluable in our discussions with builders, architects and design professionals when we are creating a piece for a particular project.

[Brock]

Don't know if D.Brady will read it, but I did. I agree with you Cynthia. But I appreciate D. Brady's point about reproducable art being more challenging sometimes too. To be able make something twice indicates mastery. To infer that not-making-it-twice indicates that you're a snob, are ugly, and have bad breath, is a practice of Dennis' he uses to liven-up discussion. Infuriating isn't it?

Actually, I find it tremendously refreshing, in these days of never offend anyone, genteel, politically correct psycho babble, to get a real honest opinion from someone. It's becoming quite rare. Brock

[Dennis Brady]

What's becoming even more rare is a willingness to accept that not everyone should share opinions.

Diversity generates originality. Consensus dilutes.