Replacing damaged prints with the same numbers

General art-related discussion.
Post Reply
lemon2
New User
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 2:00 am

Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:45 pm

Is it unethical for an artist to replace your prints which where damaged in transit with the same numbers ? Personally I dont think it is...but the artist does, which sucks because I'd like the numbers I picked out. What is the general concensus on this? I feel as long as the originals are destroyed what difference does it make ?

Lem
ercodeblue
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Channel 4

Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:56 pm

Yes.

Unethical.
User avatar
chun
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Audubon, PA (near Philadelphia)
Contact:

Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:15 pm

Personally - I don't see what the objection here is.

If you send the original #20 (or whatever) back to the artist, and he DESTROYS it, what is the issue with another one being printed and marked as #20 ?

The goal here is to insure that there's only ONE #20 right?

The main point is not that X were printed - but more that X are in circulation....

I can see the other point as well though. If thats the case, I hope that the artist destroys the blocks/screens/etc.

It does suck if you are fixated in your collecting by a specific number.
User avatar
marshhouse
Art Expert
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Almost Heaven

Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:15 pm

It does make one wonder how many "extras" are laying around the artist's studio.

I had this happen with a couple Shag prints. Same numbers (different posters) were returned to me. When I asked about the disposition of the original prints I got no response.

They were probably just too busy to respond.

:roll:

I really don't have a problem with it. Like I said, though, it makes one wonder about the quantity of the actual print run.
ercodeblue
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Channel 4

Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:34 pm

There's no point in numbering something if technically it could be an unlimited run. If everyone was having posters damaged and sending them back and forth back and forth.
User avatar
sunsetbrew
Art Expert
Posts: 3622
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am

Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:58 pm

There is no "rule" that i know of on this. But in the spirit of the limited edition, it would raise so many issues about the integrity of the run. It is not in the anyone's best interest for there to be 21 when there is supposed to be 20. or more likly 30 when there is supposed to be 20. There is no clear place to draw a "reasonable" line. The best thing to do, is not break the spirit by walking the edge. It takes years to build a following who trusts you and only one failed case to cast doubt on and break that trust.
User avatar
Bread8
EB Team Emeritus
Posts: 16438
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 12:00 am
Location: D.

Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:00 pm

the goal is not to ensure that there is only one #20, rather to ensure that there are only 200 (or whatever) of a signed/numbered run. Destroying one #20 and replacing it with another means that the S/N run is above 200
User avatar
chun
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Audubon, PA (near Philadelphia)
Contact:

Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:07 pm

If you destroy a print.

And replace it with another print.

Then how is the print run count changed?

There's 1-200 of a 200 print run...

Pollock used to have you rip off the corner of the print with the number on it and send it back for replacement - IIRC.

anyone...anyone....Buhler...
User avatar
sunsetbrew
Art Expert
Posts: 3622
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am

Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:18 pm

The point is that he had a print to replace it with. Not only that but it was not labeled (like AP) to ensure that there would not be double numbering. There is a long history in art prints where actions are taken to gain people trust not by word but deed. When an edition is finished printing the block or screens must be canceled. That is a process of cutting unrepairibly and producing a print with the canceled block (ie cancelation print). What this does is demonstrate and provide proof that the printing cannot be remade. I digress... the point is that this is transparent and a solid effort is made to show the collectors that thier investment is what it is and nothing will change that.

If artist A want to keep unnumbered prints identical to the numbered print and not tell everyone who is buying a numbering one about them, that is a form of deception.
User avatar
sunsetbrew
Art Expert
Posts: 3622
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am

Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:24 pm

Here is a little more food for thought. Recently a lot artist had a large portion of his run taken from him at a show. This person, well intentioned, was considering reprinting the missing posters. It is likely that the taken prints will show up somewhere enventually. If he reprints, he would be causing harm to those people that may buy any of the prints (reprinted or not). Down the road he would have to explain himself and he will never be trusted again. Fortunately, he decided against it...i hope.
User avatar
watersbrad
Art Expert
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:46 pm

chun wrote:If you destroy a print.

And replace it with another print.

Then how is the print run count changed?

There's 1-200 of a 200 print run...

anyone...anyone....Buhler...
Some people think that the print number should correspond with the progression of the print run. For example, in a 200 print edition the first prints that are inspected and good enough to be included in the edition are listed as A/P's. After (x) number of A/P's are printed (20-40) then the next print pulled should be #1/200. Consequently #200 /200 should be the last print pulled for the edition.

Now some may argue that the first prints to be pulled are more valuable for a number of reasons, typically because the screens tend to get looser as the run progresses. You don't have to look far to find people who insist their low # is worth more.

So what's up with artists that don't number their A/P's. How do we know that they didn't double the edition and label the 2nd half A/P ? I don't want to name any names, but I think a few artists may be stretching the ol' guideline that states an Artist Proof edition should be between 10% & 20% . I think this practice of over-printing will decrease the investment value of that artist in the long-term. Some artists are very hip to the collector market (Jermaine Rogers) and those artists (and their collectors) are gonna reap the long term rewards.

On a lighter note, when is Rene gonna chime in here??
User avatar
sunsetbrew
Art Expert
Posts: 3622
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am

Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:03 pm

watersbrad wrote:when is Rene gonna chime in here??
:lol:

btw: chun, this is a GREAT question and in the past Rene and i have went round and round on it with me arguing the same position as you have.
ercodeblue
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Channel 4

Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:10 pm

Rene and I are surfing the same wave with this discussion. But Rene is in some foreign country with wooden shoes right now and I'm busy painting.
User avatar
Bread8
EB Team Emeritus
Posts: 16438
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 12:00 am
Location: D.

Fri Sep 03, 2004 5:52 pm

the print run has changed because the artist has now signed and numbered more than two hundred prints of the same poster.

a print run should be a snapshot in time and independent of how many exist in the "now"
cushway
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 am
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:05 am

This is a tough one, and there are different sides to it.

I talked about this with Stanley [mouse] once, and he said it was alright to replace damaged prints using the same number and destroying the old one. I know I kept extra prints for this purpose and made it a rule to not sell unsigned prints. I think this may come down to how much trust you have.

Some artists, like Mark Armisnski do not number their prints. I have even often times discussed this with him, but he simply does not want to. But he only prints 00 to 200 of each usually and would NEVER reprint anything.....

It is, however, difficult and a pain to re-number prints--and difficult to keep track of. What we do when we print something is create a file for each print which contains everything about that print: who printed it, what colors, what day, etc.; any receipts; a record of when they were numbered and by whom, same with signatures, what kind of paper used, how many printed, if the artist got their A/P's and when. That way you have a complete record of the print to ensure and be able to document its integrity.

All that being said, when we moved the last time, we destroyed [literally tore in half] thousands and thousands of
prints-----lithos, silkscreens, etc. I decided that it was safer
to destroy them then to have them accidentally 'disappear'.

Bottom line here is that the integrity of the run must be protected. The buyer most feel secure that this really is a limited edition----their confidence in the product is essential to protecting value.

This area, that of defining and codifying the practises of numbering in all of its facets is yet another need for the burgeoning poster community and is an important step for its dual 'poster/art' thing.

Phil
Post Reply