Golf Prints for Your Local Course!
Meldon
courses that only a few of us are able to enjoy. I mean your favourite
course to play!
Consider the scenario of entering the pro-shop at your favourite local (or
not so local) course to pay or check in for a well deserved round. You
notice a selection of appealing, framed, prints showing the signature holes
from the course. They are numbered, signed by the artist and are very
reasonably priced at less than the cost of a round.
I'm gauging interest in the product. Thanks for your help.
/M.
Lee O.
I'm working on putting together some similar for my home course. I can
not do it for less than the green fee since ours is a nine holer at just
$15.
My digital photography with my touch up in the computer (at no charge)
printed out at a quality shop would run $15 for an 11" x 14" print. 12"
x 18" runs $20. These prices are with no matting or framing.
The approach I'm taking is to do the photo work as a hobby and the owner
of the club will purchase a large print, have it matted and framed
(probably $60 total) then hang it as decor. If anyone wants to purchase
one the print alone would go for about $30, or $85 framed.
HTH Lee O.
Meldon
the pro-shop can resell them. You'd be wholesaling to the course hopefully
in significant volume.
Golf courses as the subject is not new. There are a number of professional
artists who produce one-off paintings and limited edition prints but these
are usually dream courses. The average local private or semi-private club
would be looking at thousands for the commission to do their own course.
I'm not producing photography though. It's the look and feel of an
impressionist watercolour.
My post was to gauge interest from the golfing community. If prints of their
local course were available at the respective proshop would they consider
purchasing them and so on. Any ideas?
"Lee O." <LeOpde...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9893-419...@storefull-3174.bay.webtv.net...
Ulrich Mayring
>
> My post was to gauge interest from the golfing community. If prints of their
> local course were available at the respective proshop would they consider
> purchasing them and so on. Any ideas?
I would consider originals, but not multiples, unless they were from a
well-known artist with a concrete history in running editions that are
fair to the collector.
Ulrich
Meldon
news:4197BCB4...@gmx.de...
What a splendid post Ulrich. You've touched on two very important issues.
A very popular American artist is at present successfully marketing his work
like it's going out of style. He has rooms full of giclee prints and he
spends a considerable amount of time signing the pieces before they are
shipped. He also goes to the trouble of conservatively adding a few touches
of medium to each canvas. (The guy, and more power to him, is essentially a
brand and he sells a wide variety of merchandise for use in and around the
home.) Each of the prints in his case are unique and numbered.
With my golf landscapes, the only original that exists is in the form of
bytes of data on a hard-drive. It's a digital medium but I allow ownership
of the images to transfer. For instance, if an artist's finished canvas is
sold to a collector, if I'm not mistaken, the collector owns that image. He
can put it on a scanner if he wishes and produce his own limited edition
prints or litho's for example. The artist no longer controls what happens to
that canvas. The collector can not however claim that he is the artist.
Now take someone who has made a remarkable digital image but as you have
described, you wish to have the original. There are very few digital artists
who license their work unless for commercial purposes such as in
advertising. So I have adapted that concept for potential collectors. I
offer image ownership in place of the original. The collector can in essence
own the original. Please let me know what you think about this.
To compensate myself for the loss of revenue from that image, I am compelled
to charge what I consider a high price. To say the least, that does not
induce sales. A more affordable option are limited editions and as you point
out, the number of prints in an edition affect the potential value of each
print. This is the case for any limited edition and each print should
reflect the edition size. I'm not sure how one can prevent an artist from
breaking the limits of the edition unless the prints are certified from the
printer.
Let me ask if any well known artists you know of who are doing your local
course? How many courses would attempt to sell original art on the premises?
The answer to both is, I think, not many.
A local gallery owner described my prints as sports memorabilia. How many
pro-shops carry sports memorabilia? My impression is, quite a few and a
relatively large selection at that.
Ulrich Mayring
>
> A very popular American artist is at present successfully marketing his work
> like it's going out of style. He has rooms full of giclee prints and he
> spends a considerable amount of time signing the pieces before they are
> shipped. He also goes to the trouble of conservatively adding a few touches
> of medium to each canvas. (The guy, and more power to him, is essentially a
> brand and he sells a wide variety of merchandise for use in and around the
> home.) Each of the prints in his case are unique and numbered.
Yeah, but it's no good numbering them, if there is no limit. An edition,
that is fair to a collector, is one where it is known from the start how
many copies there will be. Only then does a collector have a chance to
determine, whether the price is fair. It makes a world of a difference
whether I have No. 1/300 or 1/3000 - basically the first is worth ten
times more :)
I don't know about others, but the artist splashing a few globs of paint
onto each print doesn't make it an original to me :)
> With my golf landscapes, the only original that exists is in the form of
> bytes of data on a hard-drive. It's a digital medium but I allow ownership
> of the images to transfer. For instance, if an artist's finished canvas is
> sold to a collector, if I'm not mistaken, the collector owns that image. He
> can put it on a scanner if he wishes and produce his own limited edition
> prints or litho's for example. The artist no longer controls what happens to
> that canvas. The collector can not however claim that he is the artist.
No way!!! I can scan an original canvas for my own private use, but I
cannot sell reproductions of it. The artist still has the copyright
(don't know if that is the correct English term), meaning that he could
still run prints off a scan that he has retained. The collector might
get mad, but he can't prevent it. 70 years after the death of the artist
all copyrights automatically cease and that is why you find
reproductions of classic artworks on so many webpages and in so many
books. In their case only the actual scan or photo can be copyrighted,
but if you make your own photo (which museums, for example, won't let
you precisely because of that), then you're fine selling them. But NOT
for living artists or artists dead less than 70 years.
> Now take someone who has made a remarkable digital image but as you have
> described, you wish to have the original. There are very few digital artists
> who license their work unless for commercial purposes such as in
> advertising. So I have adapted that concept for potential collectors. I
> offer image ownership in place of the original. The collector can in essence
> own the original. Please let me know what you think about this.
This is a very complicated matter and I would not call myself an expert
on it. If you want to transfer ownership (copyright), then you give up
all control. The buyer could run prints all over the place, which might
make you happy at first, when you're not very well-known. But it will be
hard for you to build your own brand, if there are a number of
uncontrollable freaks out there using your images for anything from
pornographic websites to religious calendars. A strategy like this might
get you off to a good start (unless you charge too much for the
originals), but it will come back and bite you later - unless you decide
to do something completely different, once you're established a bit. Or
maybe you can sell any kind of weirdness because you're a good seller in
the vein of Marcel Duchamp or somesuch. As I said, it's not easy to say.
> To compensate myself for the loss of revenue from that image, I am compelled
> to charge what I consider a high price. To say the least, that does not
> induce sales. A more affordable option are limited editions and as you point
> out, the number of prints in an edition affect the potential value of each
> print. This is the case for any limited edition and each print should
> reflect the edition size. I'm not sure how one can prevent an artist from
> breaking the limits of the edition unless the prints are certified from the
> printer.
By writing 1/150 you guarantee that there won't be any more past
150/150. Of course you could start fresh at 1/150 with the same image,
but then previous buyers would get mad and not buy from you anymore. You
are, basically, dead in the market, if you do that and are not world-famous.
I prefer unique pieces, because then I completely avoid the headache of
checking the artist's record in running fair editions. Of course he
could do another original "like" mine, but most artists would find that
too boring. If it takes them the same amount of time and effort, they'd
rather create something new instead of rehashing an old piece.
> Let me ask if any well known artists you know of who are doing your local
> course? How many courses would attempt to sell original art on the premises?
> The answer to both is, I think, not many.
There actually was an exhibition of "Golf-related art" here with a
number of fairly well-known artists (who did the Golf thing on the side,
they were not especially known for that). I believe rich people, who
play Golf, occasionally commission pieces by well-known artists, at
least that is the way it appeared to me.
But apart from that, I do see original Golf paintings in clubhouses up
for sale occasionally. Most of the time the images are not to my liking,
but there is stuff out there.
> A local gallery owner described my prints as sports memorabilia. How many
> pro-shops carry sports memorabilia? My impression is, quite a few and a
> relatively large selection at that.
Could be. I guess you are in the US, the situation might be very
different from here (Germany). I don't see lots of memorabilia (be they
paintings or whatever) in pro shops here, I think Germans don't go for
that stuff as much as Americans. Anyway, the local gallery owner
shouldn't call your stuff memorabilia, if you you number and sign them
correctly. Memorabilia are always mass produced and of no artistic value
- so you might want to seek out another gallery for a second opinion :)
Ulrich
Meldon
> Meldon wrote:
> >
> > A very popular American artist is at present successfully marketing his
work
> > like it's going out of style. He has rooms full of giclee prints and he
> > spends a considerable amount of time signing the pieces before they are
> > shipped. He also goes to the trouble of conservatively adding a few
touches
> > of medium to each canvas. (The guy, and more power to him, is
essentially a
> > brand and he sells a wide variety of merchandise for use in and around
the
> > home.) Each of the prints in his case are unique and numbered.
>
> Yeah, but it's no good numbering them, if there is no limit. An edition,
> that is fair to a collector, is one where it is known from the start how
> many copies there will be. Only then does a collector have a chance to
> determine, whether the price is fair. It makes a world of a difference
> whether I have No. 1/300 or 1/3000 - basically the first is worth ten
> times more :)
>
> I don't know about others, but the artist splashing a few globs of paint
> onto each print doesn't make it an original to me :)
My prints are numbered and include the size of the edition.
>
> > With my golf landscapes, the only original that exists is in the form of
> > bytes of data on a hard-drive. It's a digital medium but I allow
ownership
> > of the images to transfer. For instance, if an artist's finished canvas
is
> > sold to a collector, if I'm not mistaken, the collector owns that image.
He
> > can put it on a scanner if he wishes and produce his own limited edition
> > prints or litho's for example. The artist no longer controls what
happens to
> > that canvas. The collector can not however claim that he is the artist.
>
> No way!!! I can scan an original canvas for my own private use, but I
> cannot sell reproductions of it. The artist still has the copyright
> (don't know if that is the correct English term), meaning that he could
> still run prints off a scan that he has retained.
Sounds reasonable. I was speculating and yes, the term is copyright.
>The collector might
> get mad, but he can't prevent it. 70 years after the death of the artist
> all copyrights automatically cease and that is why you find
> reproductions of classic artworks on so many webpages and in so many
> books. In their case only the actual scan or photo can be copyrighted,
> but if you make your own photo (which museums, for example, won't let
> you precisely because of that), then you're fine selling them. But NOT
> for living artists or artists dead less than 70 years.
I'm not sure I follow the the museum example. Can you explain this in a
different way?
>
> > Now take someone who has made a remarkable digital image but as you have
> > described, you wish to have the original. There are very few digital
artists
> > who license their work unless for commercial purposes such as in
> > advertising. So I have adapted that concept for potential collectors. I
> > offer image ownership in place of the original. The collector can in
essence
> > own the original. Please let me know what you think about this.
>
> This is a very complicated matter and I would not call myself an expert
> on it. If you want to transfer ownership (copyright), then you give up
> all control. The buyer could run prints all over the place, which might
> make you happy at first, when you're not very well-known.
Ownership entitles the owner to do whatever they want. I would charge
appropriately.
>But it will be
> hard for you to build your own brand, if there are a number of
> uncontrollable freaks out there using your images for anything from
> pornographic websites to religious calendars. A strategy like this might
> get you off to a good start (unless you charge too much for the
> originals), but it will come back and bite you later - unless you decide
> to do something completely different, once you're established a bit. Or
> maybe you can sell any kind of weirdness because you're a good seller in
> the vein of Marcel Duchamp or somesuch. As I said, it's not easy to say.
You raise a good point but I have little to loose in my opinion.
>
> > To compensate myself for the loss of revenue from that image, I am
compelled
> > to charge what I consider a high price. To say the least, that does not
> > induce sales. A more affordable option are limited editions and as you
point
> > out, the number of prints in an edition affect the potential value of
each
> > print. This is the case for any limited edition and each print should
> > reflect the edition size. I'm not sure how one can prevent an artist
from
> > breaking the limits of the edition unless the prints are certified from
the
> > printer.
>
> By writing 1/150 you guarantee that there won't be any more past
> 150/150. Of course you could start fresh at 1/150 with the same image,
> but then previous buyers would get mad and not buy from you anymore. You
> are, basically, dead in the market, if you do that and are not
world-famous.
That would be highly unethical. I've read that artists have contacted
collectors to advise them of edition changes. I suppose this might be one
way out, but as you describe, it's better to create the edition and stick to
it.
If the artist HAD to do more editions, he can use the same image but create
a different sized work for example. Once again, better to start out with a
proper edition size.
>
> I prefer unique pieces, because then I completely avoid the headache of
> checking the artist's record in running fair editions. Of course he
> could do another original "like" mine, but most artists would find that
> too boring. If it takes them the same amount of time and effort, they'd
> rather create something new instead of rehashing an old piece.
Agreed. It sounds like you would be purchasing the art for investment
purposes. I'm not sure the weekend golfers going to the club are thinking in
terms of investment. Rather, I would suggest they would be purchasing out of
emotion.
>
> > Let me ask if any well known artists you know of who are doing your
local
> > course? How many courses would attempt to sell original art on the
premises?
> > The answer to both is, I think, not many.
>
> There actually was an exhibition of "Golf-related art" here with a
> number of fairly well-known artists (who did the Golf thing on the side,
> they were not especially known for that). I believe rich people, who
> play Golf, occasionally commission pieces by well-known artists, at
> least that is the way it appeared to me.
>
> But apart from that, I do see original Golf paintings in clubhouses up
> for sale occasionally. Most of the time the images are not to my liking,
> but there is stuff out there.
Interesting.
>
> > A local gallery owner described my prints as sports memorabilia. How
many
> > pro-shops carry sports memorabilia? My impression is, quite a few and a
> > relatively large selection at that.
>
> Could be. I guess you are in the US, the situation might be very
> different from here (Germany). I don't see lots of memorabilia (be they
> paintings or whatever) in pro shops here, I think Germans don't go for
> that stuff as much as Americans. Anyway, the local gallery owner
> shouldn't call your stuff memorabilia, if you you number and sign them
> correctly. Memorabilia are always mass produced and of no artistic value
> - so you might want to seek out another gallery for a second opinion :)
>
> Ulrich
Good point Ulrich.Thanks for your insight.
Ulrich Mayring
>
> I'm not sure I follow the the museum example. Can you explain this in a
> different way?
When you go to a museum and take a picture of, say, a Rembrandt
masterpiece, then you are fully entitled to run any kind of edition off
your photo. You can sell millions of Rembrandt calendars, if you want.
This is because the photo is your own and Rembrandt (or his estate) have
no copyright anymore. Because museums know that and because they want to
make the money themselves, they usually don't allow you to take your own
photos and they won't sell you any kind of high-quality slides, which
could be used for reprographic purposes.
> You raise a good point but I have little to loose in my opinion.
Ok. Can't say I have a definite opinion on that, so simply good luck to
you :)
> If the artist HAD to do more editions, he can use the same image but create
> a different sized work for example. Once again, better to start out with a
> proper edition size.
Which would be 100 or 200 at most.
> Agreed. It sounds like you would be purchasing the art for investment
> purposes. I'm not sure the weekend golfers going to the club are thinking in
> terms of investment. Rather, I would suggest they would be purchasing out of
> emotion.
I don't buy for investment purposes, but there is so much great art out
there, that investment value is a point that I consider. But I agree
that most golfers and probably even most art collectors don't buy art
like they buy stocks :)
Ulrich
Meldon
> Meldon wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow the the museum example. Can you explain this in a
> > different way?
>
> When you go to a museum and take a picture of, say, a Rembrandt
> masterpiece, then you are fully entitled to run any kind of edition off
> your photo. You can sell millions of Rembrandt calendars, if you want.
> This is because the photo is your own and Rembrandt (or his estate) have
> no copyright anymore. Because museums know that and because they want to
> make the money themselves, they usually don't allow you to take your own
> photos and they won't sell you any kind of high-quality slides, which
> could be used for reprographic purposes.
Ah yes, I see.
>
> > You raise a good point but I have little to loose in my opinion.
>
> Ok. Can't say I have a definite opinion on that, so simply good luck to
> you :)
>
> > If the artist HAD to do more editions, he can use the same image but
create
> > a different sized work for example. Once again, better to start out with
a
> > proper edition size.
>
> Which would be 100 or 200 at most.
That gives me an approximate idea of the size. I do see most editions in
that range. I can work with this size and have previously estimated Return
on Investment on 100 units for the retailer at 50%.
>
> > Agreed. It sounds like you would be purchasing the art for investment
> > purposes. I'm not sure the weekend golfers going to the club are
thinking in
> > terms of investment. Rather, I would suggest they would be purchasing
out of
> > emotion.
>
> I don't buy for investment purposes, but there is so much great art out
> there, that investment value is a point that I consider. But I agree
> that most golfers and probably even most art collectors don't buy art
> like they buy stocks :)
>
> Ulrich
Another good point.