Stunning cover from Daniel Clowes' Eightball no. 18 as a limited-edition print

I loved the cover painting for Daniel Clowes' Eightball no. 18, and now it's available as a limited-edition print.

This is a limited edition, archival, facsimile print of the cover painting used for issue no.18 of the comic Eightball by Daniel Clowes. It has been reproduced at a 1:1 scale to match the size of the original painting that is currently on display as a key part of the “Modern Cartoonist: The Art of Daniel Clowes” touring museum exhibition. This giclée print was created to the highest standards of production under supervision of the artist. The finest quality materials were used including an eleven-color, high dynamic range, process inkset on conservation grade 100% cotton acid and lignin-free paper and tested by the Fine Arts Trade Guild and guaranteed to resist fading and discoloration in excess of seventy five-years. Each print is signed and numbered by the artist and includes a registered certificate of authenticity. Don’t miss out on this chance to have a museum quality piece of art for your very own.

An optional logo was made for this print in the style of a “paste-up” that the artist would use in his formative years in a pre- digital era. Each logo is hand-cut by the artist and can be mounted (with archival PVA adhesive) by us at your request, or included ‘loose’ for you to choose to mount yourself (or not) when framing. The colorway for this logo differs from the one used on the printed cover of Eightball no.18. These are the exact colors the artist originally intended and are seen in this print for the first time.

"Eightball no.18 Cover" by Daniel Clowes

• [JPhilipp]

  I’d rather have new issues of Eightball, but yeah… this is nice too :)

• [Jeremy Wilson]

  It’s a giclée – which is a fancy word for an inkjet printout.  $375 for a computer printout generated by someone clicking “Print” seems excessive.  I wish they’d had it screenprinted, then I could see it being worth $375-$450.

  • [laureltree]

     seriously, as a printmaker I really resent people who go to lengths to get a giclee print. screenprints are very beautiful by the nature of the way the ink lays over ink and paper. This would have been a wonderful reductive screenprint, WELL worth 400+ USD, but… nope.

• [Pigeon Press]

  To Laurel and Jeremy, I oversaw this project… I am also a traditional printmaker by profession (for nearly half my life now) with a background in fine-press artist’s books involving intaglio, lithography, relief, letterpress, serigraph printing, and I’m just not sure that either of you know what you are talking about… This is an archival print project, with the aim to create a top-quality replica of an existing painting as accurately as possible. How could it possibly be done as a serigraph? Having deep roots in traditional printmaking, I only work with digital printmaking when it makes sense and both the artist and I were very satisfied with this print, otherwise it would not have been editioned in this way. We used 100% cotton rag paper along with the best archival inks, a large format professional camera to capture the image, state-of-the-art digital printing equipment, and ran numerous proofs while working with some of the best digital pre-press experts out there; all with the intention to get it to look nearly identical to the actual painting… Without seeing this print, I’m not sure how you can qualify your statements. I resent grumpy, reactive, comments posted without basis. “reductive screenprint”? hmmm… How exactly do you reduce an image that’s made up of millions of colors with process that is designed to use only a handful? Would you be happier if we reduced it to a mimeograph of 1 color that smells like your childhood and offered it for a quarter? Yeah, It’s just a completely different thing… This is a registered, limited-edition print of a painting valued at $50,000, which is currently in a major, touring museum retrospective, being offered at a hopefully affordable price (less than $500 which is less than 1% of the value of the original painting) for people who might like to have this art to enjoy in their homes. Not for everyone as we know, but rather for 100 people that will hopefully enjoy them. The museums are happy with it, hell even the Library of Congress saw it this past weekend and are considering acquiring it. Apologies, that it doesn’t meet your criteria (which I’m unfortunately not understanding) but I wanted to make an effort to respond, since this is a public forum and I’d like for others who might be interested in the print who are not printmakers, to not be swayed by a couple of very vague, dismissive comments, that to me, feel to be tossed-off carelessly by of a couple of people not knowing very much about this project, not really commenting on it directly, and of questionable intention.

  -Alvin Buenaventura