Auctions USA

Newer, bigger, better? Eggleston reprints sell out

Trade divided over production of large prints of some of the photographer’s best known works, but buyers love them

Untitled, 1970, sold for $578,500, a new record for Eggleston

The conventional wisdom that unique works of art are more attractive to the market than multiples was turned on its head by a white-glove sale of works by the photographer William Eggle­ston at Christie’s, New York, on 12 March, which was 100% sold by lot and by value.

The 36-lot sale, “Photo­graphic Masterpieces by William Eggleston”, totalled $5.9m, well over its pre-sale estimate of $2.2m to $3.4m, with the top lot, Untitled, 1970, making a world auction record for a single print by the artist at $578,500 (est $200,000-$300,000).

The sale was controversial because it included new, larger-format editions of the famous dye-transfer images that the artist first produced in the 1970s and early 1980s. The pieces that attracted the largest sums were new prints of works that were made famous by their inclusion in a 1976 solo exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

Before the auction there were rumours in the trade of a possible lawsuit by a disgruntled owner of one of the originals. There was a separate debate in the trade about the rights and wrongs of the sale. “This whole thing seemed so strange to me… it’s like Diane Arbus (if she were alive) deciding now to reprint her most famous images the size of Gurskys or Demands,” said the art adviser Todd Levin of the Levin Art Group.

In light of the sale’s success, it would be difficult to bring any kind of lawsuit, however. “What would be the argument for damages? It would be hard to show that the sale had diminished the market,” says the art lawyer Donn Zaretsky, of John Silberman Associates.

According to the New York state law on photography editions, sellers must be clear about edition size. Nonetheless, they need only state the number of multiples that are already in existence. While it is standard practice for sellers to be open about the edition size, the number of artist’s proofs is less commonly disclosed. Sellers must state whether the number of proofs that have already been made “exceeds the number in the limited edition by 20 or 20%, whichever is greater”. This means that works that might be made in the future are not covered.

This leaves “serious grey areas”, says Francis Hodgson, the photography critic of the Finan­cial Times and the former head of Sotheby’s photography department. He adds: “The real meat is in trading practices and whether one thinks it is right and proper to standardise them.”

“Up until the early 20th century, the idea of a limited edition in the graphic arts did not exist. Previously, it had been a factor of the mechanics of the process—for example, a lithographic stone can only issue about 1,000 examples,” says Weston Naef, the curator emeritus of photography at the J. Paul Getty Museum.

He insists that artists must be allowed to create works as they see fit—“it’s their job”—and adds that the image and the object are distinct entities. “This is especially important for Eggle­ston because he is mostly known for his images, which have been seen in reproduction more than in their original form.” The new works were created using different processes and are on a much larger scale than the originals.

Christie’s points out that there is a long precedent of artists reprinting works in new formats. “Editions are about the format and the process, so to say that we are somehow reprinting identical objects is absurd,” says Josh Holdeman, the senior vice president and international director of 20th-century art at Christie’s.

The ultimate test is whether the market accepts a work, says Zaretsky, adding that the trade “does a pretty good job of policing itself”. Owners of the originals need not worry too much, says the art adviser Allan Schwartzman: “If I owned originals, I would fear them being reproduced. But if they are reprinted, it is usually because there is an increased interest. As the market expands, value often does, too.”

Nonetheless, the practice of limited editioning was, says Hodgson, originally a “defence manoeuvre by the trade. And it’s very odd when people break their own defences.” The secondary market dealer Christophe Van de Weghe says: “The photography market can be annoying. Editions are complicated, and can be confusing—it’s why I decided to step back from dealing in it.”

UPDATE: A New York collector filed a lawsuit against William Eggle­ston and his trust in federal court this week over the recent auction of digital reprints. Jonathan Sobel, a financier, says his collection of more than 190 photographs by Eggle­ston which includes limited editions prints, has been devalued by the auction. He is seeking damages from Eggle­ston and his son William Eggle­ston III, as trustees of the Eggle­ston Artistic Trust, for violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel.

More from The Art Newspaper


10 Apr 12
14:39 CET


I saw the exhibition of the 44 by 60 inch pigment prints and I experienced things in these larger images that I hadn't felt in the more modest 'originals'. I honestly felt the colors popped and the compositions were strikingly more impressive than the ones printed on 16 by 20" dye-transfer prints. Or should I say that the two differently scaled papers with different processes had their own unique characteristics... certainly the larger prints did not diminish the aesthetics of the 'originals'. In terms of the monetary value of the smaller images losing value because of this reprinting of a negative from 40 years ago one would have to look at the smaller "Untitled (Peaches)" that sold at Christie's just last week for $242,500. That price point suggests the larger images did nothing to diminish the value of the 'originals'. If anything, the new work moves Eggleston into the headier, more deeply-pocketted Post-War/Contemporary collecting market where Sherman & Prince have moved into.

10 Apr 12
14:35 CET


It would have been great if you would have mentioned my FB page when pulling that quote from Todd.

10 Apr 12
14:35 CET


thank you for such an interesting article

Submit a comment

All comments are moderated. If you would like your comment to be approved, please use your real name, not a pseudonym. We ask for your email address in case we wish to contact you - it will not be made public and we do not use it for any other purpose.


Want to write a longer comment to this article? Email


Share this