Comments on: Faux-Printeresting Tuesday: Daniel Eatock

By: jasonurban

jasonurban — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:18:08 +0000

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

By: dianabaumbach

dianabaumbach — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:04:59 +0000

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.

By: amze

amze — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:53:26 +0000

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?

By: rltillman

rltillman — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:01:38 +0000

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.

By: jasonurban

jasonurban — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:41:36 +0000

Whoa! This is nice… but talk about low-tech printmaking. This makes a rubber stamp look like an epson.

By: ben moreau

ben moreau — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:07:14 +0000

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?