Documenting the Editions
My refusal to use edition numbers on my prints has been well established, right from the day I issued my first work. I want my prints to have 'value' as attractive objects, not as vehicles for 'investment'.
In real life of course, I make a finite number of each print, so in that sense, the editions are 'limited'. The big difference is that I reserve the right to produce more copies of the prints, should I choose to at some point in the future. The way it has worked in practice though, over the past couple of decades of printmaking, is that I almost never do - my resources are always devoted to producing new work, rather than going back and reprinting old blocks.
In that sense, we have a situation where I have the worst of two worlds - I don't get a chance to enjoy large revenues from large, repeated editions, nor do I get the benefit from having higher prices due to a perceived 'exclusivity'! So be it. I have made my bed, and I will lie in it! But a recent discussion with collectors - over on my Mokuhankan Conversations website - pointed to a reasonable compromise, offering both parties some of what they need.
I am not going to start numbering the prints - which all carry my signature and my personal seal), but I am going to start placing enough information on them to enable people to determine where any given print falls within the range of my output. Is this a print from David's initial batch, or is it a many-years-later reprint? It seems quite fair to allow collectors access to that information.
So this page will document those aspects of the print editions that may be interest to some of the collectors. You will be able to tell how many prints I have made, and just where your particular print fits within that output.
Only 85 acceptable prints from a batch of 112 sheets is an absolutely awful ratio, and I'm embarrassed to disclose it! There were two main problems, one of which was my own fault, and one 'not'. Going along with the 'rough' approach to this print - using quick strokes of a V-gouge, instead of carefully carving with a knife - I was a bit too 'carefree' with the printing. The actual impressions aren't bad, and they look quite natural I think, but it was the pigment preparation that tripped me up. I didn't grind the pigments quite as carefully as I should have, and nearly a dozen of the sheets are spoiled with spots of dark blue pigment. Part way along, I 'gave up' and reground the batch of pigment, so no more were spoiled, but it was too late to save those ...
The other problem was not specifically of my own doing, but I shouldn't have let it happen. The paper I am using is from Ichibei Iwano - a Living National Treasure - but it is a particularly 'unhappy' batch of paper. There is a great deal of chiri (pieces of bark) still in it, but what is far worse are the clumps of unmixed fibre hidden in the body of each sheet in many places. These are pretty much invisible ... until you print. They don't absorb the pigment properly, and end up hugely visible in the finished print. When that particular spot aligns with a 'noisy' place in the image, it's no tragedy, but in a smooth colour area ... There are around 20 sheets spoiled by this problem this time, but it's no good trying to complain to the paper makers. Just 'that's the way it goes' these days. Before starting the next batch, I'll hold each sheet up to the light to try and identify these trouble spots, before making the paper wet ...
