Reprints...how many is too many?

[FOODRAP]

Reprints by the artist are wack

don't you collect Brainwash- he reprints a ton of images...?

are we talking about MBW and the reinvention and or use of existing images or the reprinting of already sold out screenprints being reissued thus damaging the collectors original thoughts on purchase?

or are you just typing to type?

[Yamar]

There are 3-4 artists who I used to pick up some prints from (because I liked the art AND the limited nature of it) that I no longer buy works of unless it's dirt cheap because I don't have confidence any more that it won't be reprinted down the road. That's just a personal belief - I can find plenty of stuff that resonates with me AND is limited in nature as compared to things that *might* be reprinted down the road.

[HelloExactly]

Here's my issue.

I wanted these really bad.



I never thought I'd find these as it was only a run of 50 and long sold out before I found them. Found a set, traded for them and I have them up now. Then about 4 months ago I find out that Fro Reza designs is now printing these as an open edition. If I could have simply bought an open edition last year I would have. Needless to say, I will no longer be a customer there.

As far as Tim goes, I hired him for a project and afterward he used the art that was a creative collaboration between the two of us to sell as an "art print". Multiple and specific elements of the print design were suggested by me. Aside from a plethora of other issues, I just don't see how you take somebody else's ideas and sell them for yourself. I'll gladly take a piece of that $40 x 75 for my creative consulting work.

[DeskJob]

My penis is 6.2" long and 4.8" in girth, if I hold my breath.

[Grateful69Phish]

Reprints by the artist are wack

don't you collect Brainwash- he reprints a ton of images...?

are we talking about MBW and the reinvention and or use of existing images or the reprinting of already sold out screenprints being reissued thus damaging the collectors original thoughts on purchase?

or are you just typing to type?

I see a connection with my example and this topic but it's not the point of this thread -

Isn't a different color also a reinvention?

Find this all pretty useless- buy what you want, it's a personal choice.

[mrkyuss]

My penis is 6.2" long and 4.8" in girth, if I hold my breath.

Its not just about the size of the tool, its about how you use it. Impressive nonetheless.

[Grateful69Phish]

somebody should sell this to me at a good price before it gets reprinted

[Signalnoise]

I hired him for a project and afterward he used the art that was a creative collaboration between the two of us to sell as an "art print". Multiple and specific elements of the print design were suggested by me. Aside from a plethora of other issues, I just don't see how you take somebody else's ideas and sell them for yourself. I'll gladly take a piece of that $40 x 75 for my creative consulting work.

Unless the art/copyright/license was purchased completely, the rights to what was created remain with the artist who created it.

I only know this because it's big bucks when you can sell the complete lifetime license to a piece.

[spankman]

I wish Tyler Stout would reprint his Thing.

[toobs]

I don't think it's a big deal, I only see it as a problem if they reprinted everything the artist did all the time. The way I see it is if you have that much of a problem with an artist re-printing sold out images, don't buy there stuff anymore.

[electrachrome]

There are 3-4 artists who I used to pick up some prints from (because I liked the art AND the limited nature of it) that I no longer buy works of...

basically where I'm at. I vote with my wallet and just don't buy form artists who revisit their editions. if it's stated up front like Daniel Danger did with his "Please Don't Worry...." print, I'm fine with the intent.


I understand the argument from artists that, if after an edition sells out there is still a demand to be met, why not fulfill that demand with an additional run. Artist gets paid, fans get art.....but if that's going to be the case, why even number the prints? you could just stamp them 1st edition and sign 'em.

Aside from the marketeers who look to profit instantly from limited additions, some (probably most) collectors buy with the hope that if their taste changes or they grow tired of a print, there is still a demand (market) for it and they can at the very least get some of their money back out of it. it's the limited nature of the product that helps sustain this as a hobby and differentiates these prints from mere decoration. when an item is limited to a finite edition, it becomes a commodity. Do you see prints as a lasting object that can be sold or traded or as a disposable luxury object (like a bouquet of flowers)?
what it comes down to is that there is a fair argument for each side but I do think that it should be made clear that if an artist may create further editions it should be declared up front.

just my 2¢

[Baker]

I understand it's within an artists "right" to reprint. I've got a few pieces that I shelled out for in the aftermarket only a few months later to be reprinted. You can call it a "new edition" or "reprint" whatever you want. But the shits weak. For me it destroys an artists integrity of actually having limited work.

[wneff]

I think people should refrain from telling artists what to do with their portfolios. It's the artists' talent, and the artist should feel free to deploy it however they wish. It is up to the buyer to decide whether a particular piece is worth the purchase price, based on a variety of factors, including the potential for follow-on editions.

I also think artists should refrain from telling people what to do with the prints they've purchased. That is, unless there is an infringement of intellectual property rights/image licensing involved.

[ricv64]

I think people should refrain from telling artists what to do with their portfolios. It's the artists' talent, and the artist should feel free to deploy it however they wish. It is up to the buyer to decide whether a particular piece is worth the purchase price, based on a variety of factors, including the potential for follow-on editions.

I also think artists should refrain from telling people what to do with the prints they've purchased. That is, unless there is an infringement of intellectual property rights/image licensing involved.

I agree . This is a messageboard not a guild

[GiantBoyDective]

I understand it's within an artists "right" to reprint. I've got a few pieces that I shelled out for in the aftermarket only a few months later to be reprinted. You can call it a "new edition" or "reprint" whatever you want. But the shits weak. For me it destroys an artists integrity of actually having limited work.