SELLING POSTERS A 'LIMITED EDITION OF X/Y'
-
sunsetbrew
- Art Expert
- Posts: 3622
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
They are cards, not posters. A gig poster has always been a form of advertising and when people see one the instinct is that this was taken of a window, wall or pole somewhere. There is a huge difference. These are cards and they are not allowed to play the same game.
That said, rock posters would be worth 3-times what they are of people would be honest about it. Truth be told, the average person cannot buy a rock poster as an investment because of all the stupid unethical practices that surround them. Those same people can go to an art gallery and feel comfortable (sometimes misplaced) about the investment part of the equation. That is so screwed up. On the other perspective from people that commit these acts come the argument "it is advertising" and "other people do it". I don't buy it...literally.
That said, rock posters would be worth 3-times what they are of people would be honest about it. Truth be told, the average person cannot buy a rock poster as an investment because of all the stupid unethical practices that surround them. Those same people can go to an art gallery and feel comfortable (sometimes misplaced) about the investment part of the equation. That is so screwed up. On the other perspective from people that commit these acts come the argument "it is advertising" and "other people do it". I don't buy it...literally.
Your telling meI have a serious issue with people on Phishposters publically stating that a certain artist is UNETHICAL....
The facts:the ethics of an artist are very important and a career can be destroyed by misinformed people stating false claims and misinformation.
1. Ames advertised particular cards in a box set and did NOT include said cards.
2. Ames advertised a limited edition box set of cards, not a limited edition box.
Not a false claim, not misinformation. Cold hard facts.
Spin doctor shows, yet again, his/her true colors. Congratulations. I am done here.piemel wrote:spoxbrain wrote:again... the claim that the QOTSA poster is 'a limited edition of x/y' is FALSE as well right?
The facts:
1. Ames advertised particular cards in a box set and did NOT include said cards.
2. Ames advertised a limited edition box set of cards, not a limited edition box.
Not a false claim, not misinformation. Cold hard facts.
-
sunsetbrew
- Art Expert
- Posts: 3622
- Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am
I really don't know what a show proof edition is. And whether we talk card or posters, I do not like the level of deception that goes on. If only people took it seriously, there would be a lot fewer starving artists and a lot more people collecting them.
Like you say, things are as they are, but i would modify your phrase sightly. The tradition is not accepted, it is tolerated. Go back to that 99/100 consumers and you will see that they tolerate things they cannot change like you tolerate the phone company.
If I could change only one thing in this poster world, it would be to make it law that diclosure on whatever is done is the rule.
Like you say, things are as they are, but i would modify your phrase sightly. The tradition is not accepted, it is tolerated. Go back to that 99/100 consumers and you will see that they tolerate things they cannot change like you tolerate the phone company.
If I could change only one thing in this poster world, it would be to make it law that diclosure on whatever is done is the rule.
Hell yes - ideally it should be about full disclosure (damn, second time in a morning that I feel like I'm talking about the government... gotta stop this or it's gonna be a long Monday).
But in order for that to happen, it has to become an industry norm. I think that the best way about this at this point is to either start a artist to artist movement (could prove very difficult) OR do something the thru API (great idea, but they have to get on board for it to mean anything).
The PNE/QOTSA claim is actually true -- what the artists were selling was "a limited edition of x/y" prints. The run that the artist was selling was a s/# edition of that many prints. Nothing untrue about that.
Of course, it doesn't disclose that there were other editions of note -- the one sold at the show, the one sold thru the website, and then the A/P and P/Ps. This is where the question of "falseness" comes in - I think that we all agree with this.
Backtracking, I think all would agree that when talking about gigposters, unnumbered promo copies exist and are sold - definitely a common practice. "Show proof editions" are a bit strange and not common - think most would again agree.
But these things are unique to gigprints. Think about an unsigned, unnumbered edition of say Leia Bell's Polar Bear, Kozik's Green Lady (art print), or Jay Ryan's Tiny Car -- I dare say that these would not go over very well with collectors. I think that this is why people are upset about the Ames boxset -- they see it more as a collection of art and not as a gigposter. Maybe they are right, maybe wrong but I think that this is another aspect of why people are more upset over this than over the selling of (for example) an unsigned, unnumbered gig print.
But in order for that to happen, it has to become an industry norm. I think that the best way about this at this point is to either start a artist to artist movement (could prove very difficult) OR do something the thru API (great idea, but they have to get on board for it to mean anything).
The PNE/QOTSA claim is actually true -- what the artists were selling was "a limited edition of x/y" prints. The run that the artist was selling was a s/# edition of that many prints. Nothing untrue about that.
Of course, it doesn't disclose that there were other editions of note -- the one sold at the show, the one sold thru the website, and then the A/P and P/Ps. This is where the question of "falseness" comes in - I think that we all agree with this.
As far as I can tell, isn't this what was done for the 03 prints? There are a s/# edition (or in this case, two -- AP1 and AP2) and then an unknown number of prints not signed or numbered. And I've actually heard little complaint about that practice so yes, I think that few will complain (I won't say "none" because some will always complain about anything).would it be fair of me to expect that nobody will complain if Ames released a POSTER as 'signed edition of x/y' and it later appears that double the amount exist in the form of other editions or unnumbered prints?
Backtracking, I think all would agree that when talking about gigposters, unnumbered promo copies exist and are sold - definitely a common practice. "Show proof editions" are a bit strange and not common - think most would again agree.
But these things are unique to gigprints. Think about an unsigned, unnumbered edition of say Leia Bell's Polar Bear, Kozik's Green Lady (art print), or Jay Ryan's Tiny Car -- I dare say that these would not go over very well with collectors. I think that this is why people are upset about the Ames boxset -- they see it more as a collection of art and not as a gigposter. Maybe they are right, maybe wrong but I think that this is another aspect of why people are more upset over this than over the selling of (for example) an unsigned, unnumbered gig print.
Tra la la la la...
yes. we have given up complaining about ames for the time being. It's just preaching to the choir and it gets eikel so worked up on that other board that you just don't wanna hear what I would say, so NO I am not gonna complain if PJ's bassist's brother f&cks over all their fans some more.piemel wrote:would it be fair of me to expect that nobody will complain if Ames released a POSTER as 'signed edition of x/y' and it later appears that double the amount exist in the form of other editions or unnumbered prints?
The information contained in this post does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Expressobeans.com (EB) and shall not be held to limit the rights of EB under the Fair Use Doctrine or any other federal, state, or local law which may be applicable.