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

Baren Digest             Tuesday, 15 September 1998     Volume 04 : Number 280

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

From: David Bull <davebull@woodblock.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:25:02 +0900
Subject: [Baren 1656] Business discussions ... 

Ray wrote:
>But I still do not know what has been decided about business 
>discussions on Baren.  From your post, it sounds like
>something has been set up.

Are you confused Ray?  So am I.  So many points and ideas on this have
been scattered around that none of us seems to know what's up.

Here's how we stand:

1) There was no general enthusiasm for the idea of a parallel 'sister'
list to handle such discussions.

2) There is no wide-spread enthusiasm among the members at large for
such discussions to take up too much time/space on the forum itself. We
have a good balance recently, and we don't want to spoil that.

3) Some members however _are_ very interested in this topic - some to
'talk', some to 'listen', some to ask questions.

4) We already have a structure in place (the Encyclopedia) where people
with knowledge and experience on any print-related topic can make such
knowledge and experience available to others.

5) We have another structure in place (the One-point lessons) where
anybody with experience of some particular single aspect of printmaking
can share that knowledge.


So, given these things, I have tried to focus them by setting up a new 
section in the Encyclopedia to serve as a repository for information 
on this topic.

http://www.woodblock.com/encyclopedia/updates.html

When you go there and follow the link to 'Business Considerations', you
will see a few things that I've tossed in to get things started. 

Note that in that section there are a couple of 'forms' with
which you can submit your own additions. One is a request for additional
questions, and the other (at the bottom of the Question #1 page) is the
place where you can make short to medium length comments and submissions
on those topics.  Things you input there will not be broadcast to the
entire [Baren] list but will come to me directly (in my capacity as 
Encyclopedia editor).  I will then use that input to update the relevant 
pages ...

You will also find a link marked:
Another contributor ... - (in preparation) ...
and of course this is where those 'essays' and similar submissions that
you gentlemen were talking about the other day would fit in. There is
plenty of room on that page for lots of entries ... David Stones on how
he markets his prints in Japan ... Ray Esposito on taking care of
business fundamentals ... Bill Ritchie on setting marketing goals ...


So that's where we stand.  The structure for getting this communication
moving is now in place.  The questions are there waiting to be answered,
and it merely remains for those with knowledge to start spreading it
around ...

Dave B.

(I might also mention that I have already received a couple of
'business' submissions for 'one-point' lessons, and you'll see those
coming out in the near future.)

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

From: "Roger A. Ball" <beckorro@inquo.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:55:03 -0600
Subject: [none]

George wrote:
>I was wondering about the suitability of black walnut for carving?

It works great.  It's hard as hell and if you're tough enough, you'll like
it.  It holds an edge very well over many printings.  I believe the only
drawbacks are its price and toughness.  I also had a quantity available for
free and used it exclusively until recently.  I think it is best suited to
reduction carving (carve then print, carve then print...).  Contact me by
e-mail if you want to know more.


I'm not sure yet who DeArt1 is yet, but they asked about this:

<<  I even used the wring Rives paper at first ......
 . 
>What is this paper is it a typo or is it a Rives I don't know.  I'm
>always looking for papers.

I think they are talking about putting Rives paper through a wringer to
ready it for printing rather than a type of paper...

Cherrio,

- -Roger

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

From: StudioJNC@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:05:12 EDT
Subject: [Baren 1658] Re: Down to business ... 

Gary
"Cluttering up our minds with too much information", was indeed an unwise
statement. {made by me} Yes, I agree. A special section on business practices
would be greatly beneficial to us all.  I think that we all have some helpful
hints to contribute.  

Jeanne

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

From: StudioJNC@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:03:45 EDT
Subject: [Baren 1659] Editions 

Anyone out there !!
How do you number an edition of 21 prints when they contain different colors
and backgrounds but have the same initial image ?
For example; I started to print a woodblock and used a dark blue for the coat.
I printed 4 of them. I then decided I would like the coat a lavendar and
proceeeded to print 7 of them.  Along the way I decided that I wanted no
background color at all and printed 10 of them. I am in a quandry as to how to
number them. I understand that if you experiment with a print in the first
place and do not like what you see, you can then make the few experiments
Artists Proofs.  But what I have cannot be 21 Artists Proofs !!!   I want to
be ethical in the numbering.  Any suggestions?

Sorry to confuse some of you.  
I am guilty, guilty, guilty of a typo when I wrote "wring Rives" I meant wrong
Rives.
Now you do not have to scour the catalogs any longer looking for a new Rives
paper!!!!!!

Question Number 2
Anyone out there been to St. Ives in the UK?  I will be vacationing there next
month and just curious as it is supposed to be quite an artist colony. If you
have and want to write a lengthy letter about it , you can e mail me at
studiojnc@aol.com   
I would like to know a little more about it.
Thanks

Jeanne

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

From: Julio.Rodriguez@walgreens.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:27:01 -0500
Subject: [Baren 1660] re: editions 

Jeanne writes:
> I am in a quandry as to how to number them.

Jeanne; I don't think you have a problem here. The "final" version is the
one that you as an artist are satisfied with. The earlier prints (1-11) are
indeed working proofs. They can be sold "as is" but I would not number
them. Since you changed the print so dramatically by withdrawing the
background color; I don't believe they can even be called artists proofs
(AP). I would start numbering with the final version (the one  without the
background color).

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

From: Bill Ritchie <ritchie@emeralda.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:34:24 -0700
Subject: [Baren 1661] Re: Editions 

I call these "variable edition" and number the "EV/50". If the print is
being visited without me to chat about that aspect, then I prepare a little
"disclaimer" that simply communicates "why a variable edition?"

When the questions come up in the heart of an individual that do not jibe
with the accepted standards held by dealers, publishers, museums, etc.,
then communication is the key.

Consider, "What is to be gained by disclosure?" and "What is to be gained
by non-disclosure?" Maybe this is more art and philosophy than
business-like. For what it's worth . . . as they say.

- - Bill R

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

From: Ray Esposito <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:35:41 -0400
Subject: [Baren 1662] Re: Editions 

Bill wrote:
>I call these "variable edition" and number the "EV/50". If the print is
>being visited without me to chat about that aspect, then I prepare a little
>"disclaimer" that simply communicates "why a variable edition?"

Jeanne:

I agree with Bill for the most part.  There is a school of thought that
says since you have three distinct works, you could number them 1/3; 1/7;
1/10.  From a collectors point of view, I would prefer Bills idea of EV
1/21 as being closer to the truth  This gives me, the collector, a more
accurate picture of what I am buying whereas the first might give a false
impression if I did not know about the other two editions.

I tend not to think this is more art and philosophy than business however.
It is imparative that you keep absolutely accurate and golden records.  As
Bill points out, communication is the key.  Should any gallery or collector
ever come back to you for information or back-up and you have accurate
records, you are protected.  Also, if these are sold through a gallery,
make sure the gallery knows how and why you numbered them as you did so
they do not get caught in the middle.  Being upfront and open is the key.
Even lifelong collectors like me get confused with edition numbers at
times.  What we look for is honesty in the gallery and artist.

Good luck.

Cheers

Ray Esposito

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

From: StudioJNC@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:30:16 EDT
Subject: [Baren 1663] Re: Editions 

Thanks  To Ray, Julio and Bill for so promply answering my question.  It is
these times that belonging to the Baren group really proves itself !!!
Yes, galleries need to know and I have a couple of friends who print, number
them, and when they are sold out they print them again. To me, this is not
fair to the buyers at all. 
Thanks again !

Jeanne

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

From: Ray Esposito <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:17:14 -0400
Subject: [Baren 1664] Re: Editions 

Jeanne wrote:
>To me, this is not fair to the buyers at all. 

Jeanne:

Fair is not the word, it is unethical.  Personally I would expose these
clowns so fast it would make their heads spin.  I have been a collector for
35 years and if I ever found out an artist did something like this I would
do everything in my power to destroy them.  If that sounds harsh, trust
between artists and collectors is paramount to this "business" of ours.  I
find it incredible that anyone would do this but am not really surprised in
this day of limited ethics and morals.

Your first post shows what an artist with character and high ethics is all
about.  Asking advice instead of just saying "to hell with it, I'll do what
makes me the most money" makes me proud to have you as a dues paying member
of Baren.  (The dues are having to put up with me.  :-)>>>>)

Cheers

Ray Esposito

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

From: Daniel Kelly <daniel@vowel.or.jp>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:31:43 +0000
Subject: [Baren 1665] Re: editions 

Julio wrote:
> The "final" version is the
> one that you as an artist are satisfied with. The earlier prints (1-11) are
> indeed working proofs. They can be sold "as is" but I would not number
> them. Since you changed the print so dramatically by withdrawing the
> background color; I don't believe they can even be called artists proofs
> (AP). I would start numbering with the final version (the one  without the
> background color).

The standards in the print world are simple.:

There are any number of trial proofs. Each may be numbered and of course quite
variable.  E.G.. TP 1/3 or TP with a date. These proofs are often prized as
they are unique proofs of the artist's working methods. They are often not
sold until they show up in auction after an artist's death.
Next there is the BAT (from French which I don't know how to spell.. perhaps
bon a 'terre) This is the "right to print" copy. This final TP becomes the
BAT. It is signed by the artist and becomes the property of the printer. It
is used to compare in the making of the edition prints.
The edition is the publisher's property.
The APs (artist proofs) are the artist's property. These are exactly as the
edition and may be sold as such. The APs by tradition are 10% of the edition.
 The PPs are  the printer's proofs. Commonly the printer will have other
copies which are used in the studio as samples of work.
EV (edition variable) is common in our contemporary world as originals and
prints are blending in editions.  Several different version editions is also
common. There is no universal convention on any of this. Today's artists are
not universally opposed to  individual differences in editioned prints.  We
all know hand made prints vary. Who said they had to be all the same?  Who
cares?
Finally we come to dedication proofs which are signed to someone as in :"for
Jeanne".

These standard numberings are common in fine art publications. All of this
comes from metal plate prints in Rembrant's time  when  the wear on the plate
was evident. The edition number  therefore was important. Japanese prints have
only recently borrowed this convention to calm collectors fears. Tokuriiki
told me for example that with Magnolia wood no noticeable wear will show in up
to 1000 copies.

Rub on,
Daniel

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

From: Ramsey Household <cjramsey@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:40:16 -0700
Subject: [Baren 1666] Re: editions 

Daniel,

This is great information!  Just one small thing, from my Tamarind Book of
Lithography, BAT   stands for bon a tirer and is the printers proof ( which you
said).

Carolyn

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

End of Baren Digest V4 #280
***************************