Hey Otto. "Second to none" is an expression that is commonly used. Taken literally, you are correct. I'll defend the following statement ... in prints that cost less than a meal and glass of wine at a decent restaurant, his screen prints are second to none. The ink is so thick that once rolled the prints are difficult to flatten. Your comment that his prints are "flat" is beneath you. And yes, Otto, I've seen Miss Bugs prints, and have seen Herakut OGs (no prints). On the other hand, I'm not a Herakut fan, so am not searching for those prints, no matter how much ink they have on them. And had the opportunity to purchase Miss Bugs and passed. I'm drawn to some of the images, but don't like them enough to pay the prices they command. IMO, the method used by Santora fits the simpler images that he creates, just as the method used by Miss Bugs fits their more complex and more edgy art. Some artists use watercolors because it fits their art, others use oil paints, and still others use acrylic paints and palette knives. If the thickness of the ink or paint is the only standard of excellence, then every artist should switch to the palette knife. The same argument has been made (repeatedly) that some art is better when screen printed, and other art is better produced by giclee (according to the argument, very detailed and complex images are better suited to giclee). I might also add that Justin does his own printing (at least I think he does
), so when he signs a print I know who did ALL of the art on the print. In sum, I don't have as much sex as you do, probably because my penis is smaller than yours (and I'm ugly), my art collection is clearly inferior to yours (particularly if measured by gallons of ink or paint), and I am in general your inferior. I admit defeat. (but I do write longer posts than you, and they are very complex if convoluted, so there is that)