If anyone is interested in what I think is the same piece just a different angle, i'll probably be selling my XL Print Edition of 5. 44x36"

It’s a beautiful print. And no I didn’t buy it, nor do I collect Ms. Sandra’s work.

Ummmm, did you read my post? I never said anything negative about the printing process itself. Rather, I stated the obvious; this sketch isn’t that great. Obviously, Im not the only one who thinks that....

BOB IS FLIPPING THIS FOR 500 GBP. THANKS FOR THE PRE-ORDER GP!

reading some of the comments about this, I feel there is a bit of lack of understanding of this traditional process. I see talk about it being a sketch being transferred into an etching. While this is possible using photo sensitivity, it's highly unlikely in this case. What's done is that Sandra has 'sketched' or drawn this with a metal tool, by scratching it onto a sticky 'ground' which covers the zinc plate. It was never on paper in the first place, if you see what I mean.

Doesn't that make that this entire process even less impressive? A mediocre sketch photo transferred to the plate? I thought artists literally engraved the plates as the original? I'm not familiar with all of this, but the fact that she couldn't actually draw something with crisp, clear and concise lines and detail makes it even worse imo. 

Kinda what I was thinking. IMHO an excellent example of the etching method is Barry McGee's 'Dry Point On Acid Box Set'. Those prints are some of the finest etchings I've ever seen. Mostly due in part that McGee hand engraved each copper plate by hand. To each his own, but this release just wasn't impressive. 

Not all are sold , half held back for shows and vault sales

I know. It was just a sarcastic remark. 

As I said..




Obviously, if you see no interest in the original sketch, you'll share the same emotion, or lack of, regarding the print. Maybe it's this particular image, maybe it's the sketch form that is not up your alley. I'm leaning more towards the latter with the "quick doodle" remarks, although people not liking it have not been clear about that. A sketch is a sketch. It's not meant to be an exhaustive hyper detailed work. Some are more detailed than others. This one is quite detailed (love me some Parra sketches.. most aren't quite as detailed as this btw). Definitely not a "quick doodle". Can you pinpoint another Sandra sketch you like more to say this one isn't as good? I think some people just don't see the interest in the sketch form it seems. That is fair enough. I personally see beauty in the early stages of the development knowing what it leads to. What ain't fair is trashing the release, print or process. They're all top notch for a few reasons, most of which were already mentioned. If this print looks just like the original, knowing they went through all the trouble of going the hard route not doing a giclee, then it's mission accomplished.

I'll explain. There are two things that needs to be differentiated and your question refers to #2.

#1- The image itself, the original one, the one the artist set out to reproduce when he/she decides to print it and put it out there.

"I don't like sketches" is not warranted criticism of the original image. It's a personal preference and yes, you would be entitled to it, but it doesn't bring a hair of fair criticism to the discussion. If anything, it shows you're biased and can't critique the image. If I'm a metal head and want a quality opinion on a new heavy metal album, I certainly won't give much credit to the opinion of someone who hates heavy metal and can't stand listen to some, right?

#2-The image on the print edition.

The quality of this one only is determined by the printing process as the rest is 100% dependant on the original image. If through a beautiful and traditional etching/photopolymer printing process, the result is a print that looks so close to the original you can barely tell the difference, as far as I'm concerned, for that part, it's work well done as it achieved exactly what it was set out to achieve : reproduce accurately the original image.

First port would be to contact printhouse ,as a few buy to flip and cancel orders and some just change their mind, artist might have a few set aside then failing that a vault sale in a month or two to buy at market price , might be under release price 😉loads of works listed on eBay , hardly any selling so you might get lucky with a good price

Lazy cheat, really? Let's compare apples with apples. Any recent examples of graphite/pencil drawings/sketches turned into prints using actual hand made engraved plates? Let's hear it. Maybe it's just me not seeing it, but to me, it doesn't make sense at all.

Lazy would have been to giclee it. This photopolymer etching process certainly ain't. It was the right choice to both manage a high quality result, but through a manual and more traditional printing process. They didn't go the easy route, that's for sure.

Any specific Chapman brothers etching print that is actually a graphite on paper drawing original that is then converted to an engraved plate?

I found that their process seems to start directly creating the image through engraving the plate, which is totally different.

I stand by my argument. If you're a painter like Sandra, who starts her concepts with a pencil sketch on paper or canvas and you want to reproduce one of these through an etching to put that step of your process in the hands of your collectors, it doesn't make any sense to draw it on paper and then try to engrave it similarly on a copper plate. It won't look alike. You need to go photopolymer etching and it doesn't have anything to do with laziness, it's all about the process and end result you want. I think we definitely agree for the most part.