Hey Mick,
I don't think you're full of it and I think you make an excellent point. But the only real problem is that with the advent of digital means of reproduction and digital workflows being integrated into more "traditional" processes of printing, how then do you classify original digital works of art or art that has some digital process involved, whose means of creation can result in nearly indistinguishable multiples. Are they prints or reproductions?
In my case, my prints are not "accurate" reproductions, in fact they are altered in that the prints are truly unique compared to the original. The original colors and values of the painting are not strictly adhered to. The digital files I use to print my reproductions/prints are absolutely monochromatic, only containing greyscale values, whereas the originals have color overtones and undertones because of the properties of the pigments in the paints I use. I chose not to try to "reproduce" my paintings because of the extreme difficulty involved in color management with digital printing. But the prints do have color in them, being controlled by the particular mixture of inks I use and the base tone of the paper they're printed on. And to complicate things one step further, because of the nature of the printing process I use, the prints I produce are, for all intents and purposes, identical. And, there is no physical limit to how many prints I can produce. So, are they prints or reproductions, original multiples or identical originals? I don't even know, so I generally just call them prints.
Another twist to this issue is the concept of photography. Traditional photographs produced by hand were truly unique multiples because of the natural variations in developing the prints. But what of photographs that are printed via some digital process. Whether they're printed with a high end inkjet printer or the far more expensive laser and LED printers that use traditional photographic chemicals and papers, the end results are nearly indistinguishable, and any variations in the prints would be extremely subtle being effected by atmospheric factors, differences in temperature and chemistry or variations in the manufacture of the inks or papers.
I think that because of these issues and more, the art world's practice of grouping reproductions and prints into a generic print category is an attempt to skirt these issues.
In the end, does it matter? Personally I think it does, and that is why for me I do view my prints as reproductions, but at the same time make sure to clarify to any buyer that the image they are receiving is not "accurate" to the original painting and is therefore unique.
End result . . . confusing. But definitely worth discussing.
As to limited or not, Jillian makes a good point about the collectibility of the editions, as far as perceived by buyers. But I personally think that form of marketing is too often abused. One of the most notorious violators of this form of marketing, in my opinion, is Thomas Kinkade. It isn't uncommon to see one of his limited edition runs be made up of thousands of prints. An amount of prints that would plain and simply make their future value worthless to most collectors. But because the terms limited or standard numbered, are thrown in there, people eat it up and pay hundreds if not thousands for his giclee and lithograph prints, which in truth will most likely begin fading in the next 50 to 75 years due to the unstable inks and pigments used in his "highlighting" process (he employs "highlightists" ie: artists to add highly saturated color paint highlights to his prints). Granted this might be an extreme example but I think the most important issues here are honesty and integrity in your business practices, whether your selling a limited or unlimited print run.
For me, an open or unlimited print run might end up only being 18 prints or it could be hundreds. The main point being that I'm free to decide one way or the other and not feel like I need to increase the price of the prints because I'm selling a specific number of them. But who knows I might actually be losing money if I don't sell the amount of prints I hope to. If that's the case then oh well. I think the real issue here is whether or not it is our prerogative as artists to decide whether we produce limited or unlimited runs. And, in the end the customers are really the ones who decide what is of value or not, collectible or not. Well, that's my two cents worth.
Thanks again for the votes of confidence on the artwork. I think it is so important that artists work together, rather than hinder each other in there efforts to sell their artwork. I think we all have more than enough difficulties to deal with already without creating more problems. ie: win/win can exist. Your comments definitely make me feel like I've got some chance at success here. Thanks a million.
Best Regards,
Eric
