Hi,
Mr. Briot, that was a nice, thoughtful, article. It is an issue I have wrestled with. I am a (struggling, let's be honest) fine art photographer now in rural southern midwest, in the U.S. If I honestly thought that numbering my prints would increase sales, or increase the prices at which I could sell, I would do it in a heartbeat. But I'm not famous enough.
For the very famous and the unknown, I think the value of limited editions is, well, limited. It is in the middle that it can work for you, once you have established your name as an art-brand of sorts. It is then, once collectors begin to recognize the name, that the value of rarity becomes any significant part of the purchasing metric. With the celebrated, numbering adds little to the value of the name and the work; with the unknown, value of that sort doesn't even come into the calculations. Anyway, for someone like me, for it to have any point, numbering is a mug's game: I mean, what would I do, limit an edition to four, because if I didn't it might soar to as high as six?
I think there may be a bigger issue involved in fine art photography sales, anyway. My impression, from haunting the galleries and shows in my area, is that photography is generally perceived to be less valid, and less valuable, as art than other forms. It is not uncommon for people to make comments about photography in shops and galleries like, "I can do that," or, "everyone takes photos." This attitude may effect pricing and buying decisions.
Please understand, I love the other disciplines, and there are more painters I would cite as influences than photographers, but the issue of legitimation, I think, is one photography must deal with to a much greater extant many other branches of art. It has been an issue for photography from the beginning. It still is. And it may be, in some part, that numbering is a response to offset the effects of this issue, as uniqueness is one justification cited for devaluing photography as art.
Michael