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.
Dennis Brady wrote:...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.
