Yamar wrote: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¢