The other side of this is, if an image is selling, why stop making prints? (assuming you're not utterly sick of it).
Why at a library???Isn't that a place frequented by people who are too cheap to buy books?unlike customer baseI'd say.
How many people who sell limited edition prints have sold their entire edition? I would suggest very few.
I just want people to perceive them as valuable by making them "limited" edition.Maybe I can get rich by "limiting" them to many as I can sell. I can give them away as gifts. Demand is really high if they're free.
Editioning photographic prints is an artificial construct favored by galleries, but it's not going to benefit you.
I did say galleries favor print editioning. Some galleries will not consider representing an artist who does not edition prints. My final word on editioning prints: it's not an aesthetic choice.I'm not sure what you mean by this. First off, all marketing is an artificial construct. Secondly, if your goal is to exhibit in a gallery which prefers editioned prints, your chances of doing so increase by offering them.
I recently submitted to a juried show that requires edition numbering of all accepted work. That's a first for me, but I guess I can use any arbitrarily large number. I wonder if anyone would notice if I used infinity.
But whatever YOU DO. . . . Do not sign THE MAT BOARD!!!! sign your artwork!!! I think it to be so funny when "artist" sign mat board! Is your mat board a limited edition??? incredulously, I ask!
I recently submitted to a juried show that requires edition numbering of all accepted work. That's a first for me, but I guess I can use any arbitrarily large number. I wonder if anyone would notice if I used infinity.
But whatever YOU DO. . . . Do not sign THE MAT BOARD!!!! sign your artwork!!! I think it to be so funny when "artist" sign mat board! Is your mat board a limited edition??? incredulously, I ask!
All these Shoulds and Oughts.
Why treat a photograph as different to any other piece of media?
Turner, Picasso, Gainsborough, Contsable, Velasquez ... signing was good enough for them ...
All these Shoulds and Oughts.
Why treat a photograph as different to any other piece of media?
Turner, Picasso, Gainsborough, Contsable, Velasquez ... signing was good enough for them ...
I think it's awful when people sign their images, or put their name within the photograph. The image should stand alone and the creator is not important.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?