Why I don't Want to Sell Prints

I have to admit that I may be wrong about this. People keep telling me I'm wrong.  Wrong or not, I don't want to sell prints.
   I had an interesting conversation with a my new friend Angela Pierce about prints. Angela's art career has taken a very busy turn for her. This career includes the selling of prints of her art. So she asked me why I don't market prints more. So I answered her:
   About 10 years ago, the market was flooded with Thomas Kinkade prints. Now people are sick of him, and the prints are worthless. Of course, I'm no Kinkade, and I never will be. My common sense tells me this probably won't happen to me. In fact, I'd make sure this didn't happen to me. Still, my heart tells me to be careful.
   I've been trying to market myself to upper-end people. It's been slow, but I'm showing signs of getting there; two of my higher priced paintings sold to doctors at The Outback Art Fair in Marquette, MI. My art is selling, and more and more to the right people. 
   Affluent people want to spend their money on the unique. If they see prints all over, will they want the original? Will they want something that everyone has? Now, I know that a very popular print can drive up the price of the original and make it more sought after by people who want to buy bragging rights. I'm not there yet. I'm not sure I've painted that kind of painting yet.
   Another reason I don't want to sell prints is that in the end, prints are simply copies of my work. They can be artfully presented, and creatively marketed. Take a giclee' print for instance. 'Giclee' is from French for spray, as in ink jet. Yep. It's just a copy. It's a fancy copy, and a pretty one too. Still they aren't really MY work. 
   Here's where Angela vehemently disagrees. She says: "Yes, they are in the sense that if you authorize production of them you have to accept ownership of the end product. That's why it is extremely important when choosing a print service that you choose very wisely."
   I used to offer prints, but got absolutely no sales. I'm not sure why. Maybe I didn't try hard enough. Maybe my pictures weren't high resolution enough. 
   This brings me to another reason not to sell prints. My friend Tim Flannery, who has created website after website after website, has told me that my photos online don't do the real thing justice. Here's why: When I paint, I glaze one transparent color over another, allowing the paint to dry between sessions. This gives the work a depth, a glow, and a brilliance that you can't see in photos. And that's all prints are; copies of photos of art. With a bunch of prints of say, "The Dance" floating around, I fear that my work will be downgraded to just another painting of a tree. You'd miss the way the colors dance around on the rock and tree, an effect which helped me give this painting its name.

The Dance $520 at Vertin Gallery

   So I market my art as unique, one of a kind work. When you buy one of my paintings, you can be sure no one else has it. You can be sure no one else will have it later.
   I'm not knocking anyone who sells prints. It's big business, and I'm happy for those who can and do make a good living off them. I've simply chosen not to use them at this point. 
   To which Angela tells me: "...even though you feel this way now, and the way you feel is perfectly justified and understandable, be prepared to have your feelings and circumstances change in the future. Don't let a piece of your work out of your hands without securing a high resolution print file for it. You never know what might happen."
   And she would know!