I know I'm late to the party on this one, but can anyone point me in the direction of the Tate email to try get on the list for the opening night ?

Ah ok, cool. Been meaning to renew my membership for a while so thatl be a better option.. cheers for the info.

If you are a Tate member you can attend the launch night at the Tate Edit shop.  www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/private-view/damien-hirst-limited-edition-prints-launch

What makes you say that?  When you 'request to buy' it is not usually on a first come, first served basis.  If it was first come first served, then there wouldn't be much point in filling out the form with a then 2-week waiting period to follow.

Has anyone had a chance to check out the H-4 prints at the Serpentine Gallery? If so, how do the colors compare to the photos put out by Heni. The ones I've seen on Instagram look a bit washed out.

Yes. They're nice but nothing amazing.

They're all of the same quality. I was expecting the prints to give off more of an appearance of texture.

I have a giclee printer in my family. Yeah they take a high definition digital file eg. Jpeg tiff or png. Some take RAW files. And print it out, don't think it's a surprise though...

Amazing machines btw. If you run out of a colour mid print, you can change the cartridge and it'll resume the print with absolutely no imperfection.

diarmid is confusing printing processes.

The Damien Hirst giclées (i.e. inkjets) may have been produced using photography (to take images of the original paintings), but they are not in themselves photographic prints.

[Contrast this to C-type prints, which are actual photographs — i.e. requiring light sensitivity and chemistry — made from a digital file and exposed using digital technology.]

It's not that hard to use proper English. You could have used better grammar.

I think the most interesting and possibly troubling part of this release for myself at least is buying a print of a section of an original.. just feels odd

Yes but I think for that reason the smaller spots look more complete

I think it's a compromise. Rather than Hirst painting a smaller painting the same size as a limited edition and having that produced full size showing the splodges or spots the same size in the print as the painting. He has painted huge canvases and if the whole painting was reduced in size to print size the splodges would be tiny.

No worries if anyone feels let down, I can paint them an identical looking canvas and even sign it Hirst on the back for a few dollars more or less.

The psychological hurdle may be down to you seeing each of these prints as merely "a section of an original". And therefore perhaps as inferior, or the result of compromise.

From my own perspective, I'd have no issue of principle here, provided the prints were created or even just authorised by Damien Hirst himself.

__________


Imagine taking a photograph of an outdoor scene.

The resulting shot may be fantastic. However, this doesn't necessarily prevent you from continuing to experiment with different formats. You might zoom in on one aspect of the image — for emphasis, or for the increased dramatic effect offered by a severely-cropped composition.

Now, technically, the new close-up is "a section" of the wider context photo. But it's also a separate original image created by you in its own right. That in itself doesn't make the close-up less good or second-rate. It's just different.

__________


The above argument would seem even stronger when talking about a bunch of dots.

Check out these two woodcuts published by Manifold Editions:








While I'm not sure if I'd actually buy these prints, I do find them aesthetically pleasing.

And if it were later disclosed that they're based on tiny sections of a larger painting like the one below, my opinion of them would probably stay the same.