Comments on: Stunning cover from Daniel Clowes' Eightball no. 18 as a limited-edition print http://boingboing.net/2012/09/13/stunning-cover-from-daniel-clo.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Mon, 20 May 2013 22:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Pigeon Press http://boingboing.net/2012/09/13/stunning-cover-from-daniel-clo.html#comment-1534040 Pigeon Press Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:27:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=180867#comment-1534040 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 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

]]> By: laureltree http://boingboing.net/2012/09/13/stunning-cover-from-daniel-clo.html#comment-1532733 laureltree Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:38:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=180867#comment-1532733  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.  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.

]]> By: Jeremy Wilson http://boingboing.net/2012/09/13/stunning-cover-from-daniel-clo.html#comment-1532250 Jeremy Wilson Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:09:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=180867#comment-1532250 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. 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.

]]> By: JPhilipp http://boingboing.net/2012/09/13/stunning-cover-from-daniel-clo.html#comment-1532180 JPhilipp Fri, 14 Sep 2012 06:57:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=180867#comment-1532180 I'd rather have new issues of Eightball, but yeah... this is nice too :) I’d rather have new issues of Eightball, but yeah… this is nice too :)

]]>