[Baren]: The mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking.

Baren Digest             Saturday, 13 December 1997     Volume 01 : Number 014

---------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Bull <davebull@asahi-net.email.ne.jp>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 22:14:18 +0900
Subject: [Baren 69] Japanese prints links ... 

I just ran across a 'new' web site on prints today.  The focus is on
20th Century Japanese prints, and it gives a straightforward outline of
the different styles, along with some clear illustrations.

http://home.iSTAR.ca/~dmcclean/prints.shtml

Note for Dan:  You asked the other day where you can see some of Un-ichi
Hiratsuka san's stuff.  I see that this site has a link to a site of his
work.  I haven't followed it yet, but perhaps it will have the prints
you wanted to see ...

Dave B.

------------------------------

From: amoss@mindspring.com (John Amoss)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:30:17 +0300
Subject: [Baren 70] ego rantings 

hi again-
i will cast my views on the subject of ego/less art.
forgive me for the following "young man's rant":

i think that the joy of art is the celebration of diversity and the process
of creation (both in the artwork and within one's self). i think most
people would agree that there is so much around us that the artist must
become a unique "filter" in order to derive the essence of that particular
experience. i find one of the hardest things to do is to decide what to
filter- it's like picking a bouquet from a field. anyway, i think that it
is imperative to understand what makes yourself unique by reflecting on
what interests you. the ego is a vehicle to find your uniqueness. it plays
a roll by reminding you that your journey is a sacred quest. if followed
with sincerity, it should continuously define yourself as someone new. as
an artist, one's work can be a narccistic mirror- i am what i have done,
rather than i am what i am doing now. i believe that one "stumbles" on the
path by paying too much attention on what one has already accomplished.
jiddu krisnamurti said (paraphrased) that what is known already is dead and
that if you follow that, you are a deadman walking. i think signing your
work can be important to people as a means of passage (like a diary)- not a
means of rest. the signature can say: this thing was done by a person that
was formally known as me. now it is done. on to other things.

on hokusai's ego:
what little i know of hokusai (his habit of changing names and addresses)
makes me think he lived the above credo to the hilt.
however, (unless my translation is misinterparated) his ego was seems
apparent in his well-known musings: "at age one hundred i will have become
truly marvelous".
later in the passage, hokusai said that by his 110th birthday that "every
dot should surely have a life of its own." although no artwork will ever
walk off the page, i suppose that he expressed the ultimate artist's
fantasy- to sign god's signature- life.

thoughts?

- -by the person formally known as john (sounds a little like the singer prince).

JOHN AMOSS ILLUSTRATION

------------------------------

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:31:50 -0800
Subject: [Baren 71] Re: Ego-less art 

Dave wrote.
>Of course, this is the 'mindless' craftsman David speaking.  _How to
>fill that blank white page_ is no part of my thoughts ...
>
>For you 'artist' types, the story is different.  Or is it?

I think it is.  I know that when I am printing I work hard and NOT becoming
a robot.  The reason for this is that I want to create a print the is just
slightly different from the last.  What I find is, that by concentrating on
the task at hand, I pay attention to inking and my mind will focus on a
giving area of the plate that I did not ink very well on the last effort so
as a result the print is different.  So this goes as I pay attention to the
details of the last print so goes the next print.

The other factor to consider is that I do not print the complete edition at
one time.  Some of this has to do with cost...actually a lot... and the
other is the factor of monotony.  I don't like it and must always be moving
forward with the work I do and exploring new things.  If I didn't have this
nature I would still be living in Quebec painting Sugar Shacks which was a
kin to printing your own money. For those that are unaware of the situation
in Quebec....let me just say that it not a place the English feel
comfortable living.

The politicians operate it somewhat like a banana republic.  Example....If
you move there and you or anybody in your family had not been educated in
the English language in Quebec Province then you nor any of your children
can go to English schools.

Now how did I get on to that one.!!


Graham

------------------------------

From: Patrick Robinson <psyberdude@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:05:06 -0500
Subject: [Baren 72] Re:  Artists and Craftsmen 

> in the days I exhibited and worried
> about artist's statements I wrote about the ephemeral nature of painting 
> expressionist minimalism, presence and absence, the shunning of calculated
> transcendence and faux monumentality, the pathos of artistic ambition, etc.
> etc.

Wheee-eeee! Now THAT'S the most lucid and "meaningful" artist's statement 
I've ever seen. It is the absolute zenith of artistic psychobabble, which 
is what so many artistic statements seem to be composed of these days. 
"Faux monumentality" . . . I love that one!) :-) 

At our gallery, we long ago quit making use of such mission statements 
from any of the artists we represent. We let the artwork make the 
statement! It's really just a case of attempting to de-intellectualizing 
the artwork being offered to the clients of our gallery. The interesting 
aspect is that ALL 68 of our artists have appreciated this way of dealing
with the usual "ego-jottings" of the artworld. But I'm certain that not 
all of the artist-members of this list would agree with this approach.

On another subject, I'm not sure that the question of artists signing or 
not signing their work is clear to me. I've always gone on the assumption
that the signature was in effect an "imprimature", attesting to the 
identity of the artist who **created** the image but not necessarily 
signifing that the signer **produced** the print. The signature was, 
however, an acceptance on the part of the artist of his/her personal 
responsibilty for the artistic results, regardless of who assisted in the
making of that print. In Japan, it is my understanding that even though 
the creator of the image (the "artist") signed the print, his carver(s) 
and printer(s) were most always given credit for their contributions, as 
was the publisher/coordinator of the project. Does anyone on the list 
know if such contemporary master carvers as, let's say Yamagishi and 
Maeda, were not permitted to have their seals affixed to the prints they 
worked on?

On the other hand, here in the West we have the commonplace signing of 
prints by reknowned artists from Renoir to Picasso who never identified 
(at least on the print) who actually printed the work. In the case of 
Renoir, the printer of most of his stone lithographs (Auguste Clot) was 
at the turn of the century far more famous than the artist himself. Was 
this ego at work . . . or was it just a case of the "artist" taking 
responsibility for the results of his artwork?

BTW, all of the above was written before I'd read David's beautifully 
written example of "ego-less art". The signature aspect that I was 
discussing is a bit different from the "no mind" approach. The more 
modern usage of artists signing their work comes more, in my 
not-so-humble opinion, from the commercial sale-ability of a recognized 
"autograph" than from the merit of the artwork itself.

Patrick

------------------------------

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:24:29 -0800
Subject: [Baren 73] Re:  Artists and Craftsmen 

>Patrick wrote
>"Faux monumentality" . . . I love that one!) :-)

An I say.    Bloody goobily gook.
The artist is trying to impress some one with words rather than let the
work speak for itself.  When this happens I say.
The artists should have been a writer not an artist. I know of some here
that still do this and I feel that if they spent more time doing there work
they would grow and go beyond trying to impress themselves.
I do believe an artist should make a statement but it should be
intelligent, understandable, and meaningful.

I don't have any writings in my Web site but will be adding something when
I get the chance.  Some of what I have written is fun and some is serious
but all is an insight into me and or my work.  I will let you know when I
have made changes. After saying what I have it should be interesting to see
the responce.  Its OK you guys I have broad shoulders. I am also going to
include a few drawings.

>On another subject, I'm not sure that the question of artists signing or
>not signing their work is clear to me.

 I have always had a hard time with the fact that an artist gets to put his
name on a print that is 'hand' made by someone else.  Oh I know the
argument. The creation of the image is all and the duplication is for the
crafter.  I consider everything I do is an art form and printing my own
work falls into that category. To hire someone else to do what I create is,
to me,the epitome of laziness.  I think some of you will class that
statement an Oooo...Eeeeee.
Now having said all that.....I wonder if I will change my tune if when I am
unable to cope with the rigors of printing when I am old or physically
unable.

Talk to me in a couple of years and find out....You see this is a planned
marketing strategy to increase sales ((<;

Have a good weekend.

Graham

------------------------------

From: David Bull <davebull@asahi-net.email.ne.jp>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 08:50:38 +0900
Subject: [Baren 74] Re:  Ego-less art 

>From Pat:
> We let the artwork make the statement! 

>From Graham:
> The artist is trying to impress someone with words rather 
> than let the work speak for itself.

>From Matt:
> Try to let people make up their own stories about the pictures!

OK OK OK!  I guess I'm outgunned on this one!  But gentlemen, I think
you're all trying to live in an ideal world, a world where the recipient
of the artwork is willing to invest the experience necessary to try and
look at that thing properly, and to try and understand what it all
means.  I'm sorry to have to remind you that this just isn't the case
anymore.  The day-to-day world is SO unbelievably packed with visual
imagery, that a work of art like the ones we make just isn't 'special'
anymore.  People don't and won't and can't look at it properly.

When I see one of your prints, I'm knowledgeable enough, and experienced
enough, and interested enough to spend a lot of time looking at it.  But
truly, just how long and how deeply do you think other people spend
looking at your prints?  Patrick, you can perhaps tell us - what's the
average time people look at any given picture in your gallery?  I'd be
very very surprised if it's any more than 10 seconds, if that.

In the case of my exhibitions (Ego!  Down boy!  Down!  Down!   Roll
over!  Play dead!)  it turns out a little bit different.  Next to each
print is a 'story' - perhaps about something in the making of the print,
perhaps something about the poem, perhaps about anything ...  People
stand there, look at the print, read the story, look back at the print,
come over to talk to me about some point that was raised ...  Every year
I put ten prints on display this way - NEVER more.  It takes a typical
person from 30 minutes to an hour to get through the set.  

Watching them do this gives me a great deal of pleasure.  (Ego again, I
guess).

So I think I'm in the centre of this topic.  No artist's statements
(that's the work itself)  But yes, enough verbal material to get them
drawn in, thinking and discussing what they see.

Dave

SO many ideas and things I want to say after reading that last batch of
postings ...   But if I set a bad example and ramble on and on and on,
[Baren] will start to become unreadable.  Help me try and find a good
balance between concise expression of our ideas, and yet still saying
all that we want to say ...

------------------------------

From: Matthew.W.Brown@VALLEY.NET (Matthew W Brown)
Date: 12 Dec 97 22:00:41 EST
Subject: [Baren 75] Visual and Verbal 

Daniel: ...*In Praise of Shadows*? Great book!

John: you wrote: "the ego is a vehicle to find your uniqueness. it plays
a roll by reminding you that your journey is a sacred quest. ...if followed
with sincerity, it should continuously define yourself as someone new." Thank
you so much for contributing these and your other words. I went and printed
them out and they'll go onto my studio wall! The question I get stuck on: why
does ego so persistently seem to be checking back to see how we've been doing?
Why does it do this? Why so often looking back to see where we have been?

Dave: That last e-mail, # 74, now THAT is ART! (to me, it speaks to me,... why?
Is it a breaking through, a new way of putting together familiar elements. Dog
(four-legged pet) as the symbol of ego; did that just come up or have you been
working that one for a while? It's an excellent analogy.)
	So are you getting at something to do with the interplay of the verbal
and visual mind? And concentration of energy: ten prints in a year and no more. 
	Is the ukiyo-e print actually a visual poem, working on a verbal level
as well as on visual story level? 
	A great deal of our mind is devoted to assimilating visual data, and we
can download quite a bit in 10 seconds from the wall of a gallery. Our minds
are perhaps opposite to that of the computer: we are slow with text yet fast
with images, while the computer is the other way around. But are you saying
that to slow down the mind with a little text is an essential part of
establishing a credible context for meaningful visual experiences?
	 Can you share thoughts some time about pictures in books, or the
relationship of images and text on the Web? (When you have time.)

Matt

------------------------------

From: Patrick Robinson <psyberdude@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 22:49:52 -0500
Subject: [Baren 76] Re:  Ego-less art 

David wrote:

>The day-to-day world is SO unbelievably packed with visual
>imagery, that a work of art like the ones we make just isn't 'special'
>anymore.  People don't and won't and can't look at it properly.

I'm in complete agreement with this comment. However, it is the primary 
job of the art dealer and the "art consultants" (salespeople) to work on 
behalf of the artist to make certain that the folks who are looking at 
the artwork actually "SEE" what they are seeing. In other words, we are 
talking about what some have called "directing seeing". One of the least 
intrusive ways to achieve this is exactly what David described, the use 
of "title cards". 

>Patrick, you can perhaps tell us - what's the
>average time people look at any given picture in your gallery?  I'd be
>very very surprised if it's any more than 10 seconds, if that.

But even with these title cards, David is correct in saying that the 
typical(?) visitor to an art exhibition spends no more than 5 or 10 
seconds looking at a particular work of art and perhaps no more than 10 
minutes looking at the whole show . . . if no one engages them in 
conversation, or unless free booze and finger-food is being offered. So 
the artist has very little time in which to engage the attention of the 
art-viewer and potential customer.

The trick is to direct your attention to the person who has seemingly 
been attracted to a particular piece of artwork, then fan the embers of 
that initial attraction into a healthy blaze of interest, and THEN 
provide enough information so that this blaze erupts into a raging 
inferno of desire to OWN the work! It is here that we who call ourselves 
"art dealers" come into the picture (excuse the pun), for we are the ones
who should know the techniques of how to add fuel to the flame . . . so 
to speak. Actually, it should be the artist-creator who does this, rather
than some art salesperson, but I have met VERY few artists who understand
the art of selling art. This mailing list is probably not the place to 
discuss this, but if any of you are interested in the subject I will be 
happy to correspond with you by personal email.

Patrick 

------------------------------

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 21:29:59 -0800
Subject: [Baren 77] Re:  Ego-less art 

You make a good point Dave.

>The day-to-day world is SO unbelievably packed with visual
>imagery, that a work of art like the ones we make just isn't 'special'
>anymore.  People don't and won't and can't look at it properly.

There has been so much realism (Dicky Bird, Moose and Beavers) I call it
Fluff....that people are conditioned not to think. Thank goodness the
pendulum is starting to swing.

The thing you are talking about ...some wording.... as part of the creation
and stimulates the viewer mind is a different matter.  That is what I
referred to when I said I would be posting some info on my site.

For instance on piece called Estevan.....the dialogue that I use when
displaying that image is..... On a clear day you can see rain falling on
the coastal mountains.  Go to my site and read this statement when you look
at the image of Estevkan.  You will understand. having lived on the coast
here in BC.

Graham

------------------------------

End of Baren Digest V1 #14
**************************