Daniel Eatock made these images by placing some Letraset Pantone markers on top of a stack of paper, and allowing the ink to bleed through the sheets for one month.
The edition number was determined by the number of sheets the ink bled through from the possible 500. The numbering of each sheet corresponds to the position it was within the stack and also determined its value. The final sheet the ink reached, (furthest from the top) was numbered 1 / 73 and valued at £1, the one above numbered 2 / 73 and valued at £2 etc. The top sheet (the sheet the pens rested on) was numbered 73 / 73 and valued at £73.
Now, I have a liberal attitude toward defining print terms, but “the edition number”? …Mr. Eatock, you sir are a rascal and a scamp!
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 26, 2008 at 8:07 pm
ben moreau
while i agree defining the images as a strict edition # is not quite right here, possibly could he have defined them as a variable edition? it seems chance operation has thrown a monkey wrench into this, but i have a bigger problem with the pricing. what really makes any one of these more valuable than any other?
August 27, 2008 at 4:41 pm
jasonurban
Whoa! This is nice… but talk about low-tech printmaking. This makes a rubber stamp look like an epson.
August 27, 2008 at 10:01 pm
rltillman
Urban: I thought you would like this, low-tech Pantone and all.
Ben: Thanks for the thoughtful comment; I’m glad you’ve opened up a dialog about the pricing. To me, the pricing structure is integral to the concept of the work, which is almost a parody of the very notion of an edition. There’s no reason for the topmost “prints” to be more valuable than the others, yet here it is. There’s something fascinating there, I think.
August 29, 2008 at 12:53 pm
amze
Assuming that Daniel Eatock is very clever, then this piece becomes a satirical critique of many things at once, that all revolve around the ‘market place’ factors for determining value within the art world.
Notions of value in relation to edition – let alone edition #’s- is totally constructed- as are most determinants of value in the art market, like, size, canvas vrs paper, etc. etc. This works calls attention to the ‘elephant in the the room’ of most commercial art enterprises.
My question is whether the work moves beyond satire, and/or should it? In his procedural attempt to turn the ‘art valuing process’ on it’s head is he also modeling another way? Like the gift economy that often surfaces in print communities or relation works?
September 1, 2008 at 5:04 pm
dianabaumbach
As Mr. Eatock mentions, “I am interested in connections between image and language, titles, punch lines, miscommunication, subversions,” so I suppose the impetus to price them as such is actually part of the work (rather than a nudge from a gallery or something like that). Yes, this is about process and systems, but I think the images stand on their own as purely formal images. They’re actually pretty hip.
September 22, 2008 at 12:18 pm
jasonurban
This guy is PROLIFIC. Has anyone seen this book yet? I need to order a copy soon.
http://www.coolhunting.com/archives/2008/08/daniel_eatock_i.php