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

Baren Digest             Saturday, 20 December 1997     Volume 01 : Number 020

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

From: Bill Mixon <bmixon@nine.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 22:26:58 -0500
Subject: [Baren 103] Re:  Mind of a printer  

Hi all,

My goodness, I was just thinking of posting a question or two on that
very topic, when along came David's report on Oushi-san's very lucid
thoughts!  Serendipity again.

I've been sharing these recent posts with a friend of mine, Koinu-san, a
beginning printmaker like myself.  This was his reaction:

******

Oushi-san's words are very clear, and spoken from the heart.  I cannot
argue with his feelings.

I might take issue with the claim that printmaking is only about making
large editions of identical prints.  Quantity is a potential in
printmaking, that sets it apart from painting.  But there are special
qualities achieved in printmaking that are hard to do in any other way:
the luminosity of pigments sitting IN the paper rather than ON it, the
special personalities of etched or carved lines, embossings (whether
blind or inked), the ease with which ideas can be explored in a series
of variants.  I'd agree with Gabor Peterdi on this:  I'd still do
printmaking for its own sake even if I only ever did ONE of each print!

Of course at this stage in my development I could probably not pull a
large edition of arguably identical prints if my life depended on it.
The ABILITY to do that is certainly a skill to strive for, even if one
does not always use it!  It's just not the only way.

My first printmaking teacher was of the old school.  She taught that one
should print ONLY what is "in the plate", no expressive inking or
variations, each print as exactly like the last as possible.  My second
teacher had a very different perspective (though he and I both deeply
respect the work of the first teacher).  He taught monoprinting too, and
so was more open to the idea of variants;  for him, in fact, that was
part of the point.  Of course I'm just a novice, confused yet fascinated
by the range of opinions I find expressed.  For myself, I think that
both teachers were RIGHT for themselves, and that my own feelings fall
somewhere in between.

Struggling to puzzle this out from first principles, I'd say that
variants on a print are a perfectly reasonable thing, as long as one is
upfront about it.  (I'll use an extreme case as a counter-example:  I've
looked at print editions in galleries where each print in the edition
was different.  I mean RADICALLY different, folks, not just differences
in baren pressure or brushing;  same matrix, but wholly different color
schemes and layering.  And yet, the prints in the set were marked as if
they all came from the same edition, 10/35, 11/35, 12/35, and so on.
This made me very uncomfortable.  My gut reaction was that if they were
going to be THAT different they should have been indicated as variants;
unless one does this one owes it to the print buyers to try to make an
edition of prints as alike as you can.  Honest effort and honest
communication, that's what counts;  given that, anything goes.)

But am I just being uptight?  Is this the naivete of inexperience?  What
do more experienced artists, printers, dealers and collectors of prints
say on the subject of variants, editioning, and the marking of prints?
I wouldn't expect a single answer.  I'd expect as many variants of
opinion as there were respondents!  (And all of them "RIGHT".)

******

Since Koinu and I really think alot alike, I can say he speaks for me
too here...

(Thanks, Dave, for presenting such a well-spoken opening volley on a
subject that gives serious beginners a bit of philosophical angst!;^)

Wishing all of you a happy holiday season,
Bill

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

End of Baren Digest V1 #20
**************************