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

Baren Digest            Thursday, 17 September 1998    Volume 04 : Number 283

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

From: "Roger A. Ball" <beckorro@inquo.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:21:13 -0600
Subject: [Baren 1682] Editioning 

Risking flame, I rant:

99.9% of ANY argument about editioning is complete horse crap.  Who cares?
You're the damn artist.  Number them how you want to.  If sales and money
are the big driver in your life, make it a limited edition.  Figure out
your own wimpy ethics and I'll figure out mine.  I believe a hand-made
print can be either numbered or not numbered as the artist sees fit and to
hell with anybody who doesn't like what the artist decided.  Yes, there are
bountiful unethical uses of editioning.  But following a rigid standard
wherein I'm bound to strict guidelines?  Not a chance.  The thing that
irritates me the most is someone saying I need to do it their way to be
"ethical."  Lying, misleading, misrepresenting, theft and fraud are all
legitiment foes to struggle against in the art world.  If I start releasing
so-called hand-pulled editions of 4000, I need to be shot for sure, but a
variable edition of 21 honestly hand-pulled prints of any type ought to be
"numberable" ANY way the artist sees fit.  Problems come about when
dishonesty and fraud are the intention, not when a true artist numbers a
true limited edition in any semi-legitimate way.  So fine, kill the greedy
money grubbing bastards, but leave out the claim that there has to be one
"right" way.

Kerblooey,

Roger

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

From: Julio.Rodriguez@walgreens.com
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:38:49 -0500
Subject: [Baren 1683] re: final edition... 

Roger writes:
>Problems come about when dishonesty and fraud are the intention, not when
>a true artist numbers a true limited edition in any semi-legitimate way.  
>So fine, kill the greedy money grubbing bastards, but leave out the claim that 
>there has to be one "right" way."

I agree with this statement. I think the difference is when an artist
labels his/her work as a TRUE LIMITED EDITION and sells it under that
pretense. If he/she later prints more to sell/profit, then he/she is being
unethical.  KILL him/her !  Stick him/her  in the back with his/her own
carving tools.... no ... better yet !,   Put his/her head under a screw
press and turn until blood & brain matter splatter all over the floor!!!!
What would you label that.....AFP (artist final proof) or ABP (artist
bloody proof) ?

See, I told you guys there was lots of anger directed at this topic here at
Baren.......  Next topic ?

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

From: Phil Bivins <pbivins@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:44:06 -0400
Subject: [Baren 1684] Re: Patrick Press 

Graham wrote:
>>When I get back home I will send you details re the Patrick Press.

Graham, I wrote down the email address, but I have misplaced it. If you
have it, please send it my way. Thanks, 

Phil

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 1685] Re: Patrick Press 

>Graham, I wrote down the email address, but I have misplaced it. If you
>have it, please send it my way. Thanks, Phil

Here is the e-mail address  ......   danpat@comox.island.net
If you have a fax get them to fax the brochure information to you.

Regards,

Graham

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 1686] Re: Green drop 

Andrea wrote....
> I am a professional artist and exhibit my work widely but choose to limit
> my exhibitions to museums and universities. In all cases I choose
> where I show my work carefully as it influences my reputation.

It is nice to hear someone else has the same philosophy. This is my
approach to a 'T'

>I know this my sound haughty but I am participating in this
>exchange for the fun of it and because I know I will appreciate and be
>inspired by a lot of the work I receive.

My goodness I feel I am looking in a mirror.

>I am not interested in it becoming a professional endeavor.
>Just my feelings,

Just fine with me Andrea.....

Cheers

Graham

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

From: Daniel Kelly <daniel@vowel.or.jp>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:00:14 +0000
Subject: [Baren 1687] Re:   Baren Digest V4 #281 

George wrote:
> But am I suspicious of every Hiroshige print I EVER see, and
> wonder how many thousands of them are packed in drawers and boxes around the
> world ? You bet! Does the fact that his work has been reprinted with
> reckless abandon affect my appreciation of his art? I'm sorry to say, I
> think it does. Just think of it, if the world were hip deep in woodblock
> prints how many people would appreciate any of them? Sheer numbers has an
> effect. A big part of the allure of woodblock prints for me ,as a collector,
> is the fact that they are rare.

Perhaps your unaware of the numbers of prints  through out the Ukiyoe
period. They were all by custom unlimited. Popular editions have never stopped
to this day. It not unscrupulous. They simply don't  number them.  Basically
any contemporary print is rarer than any Hiroshige or Utamaro.
People may tell you the date of printing as evidence of age, etc.. But some
editions were sold out in one day in Edo.
The were printed again that night.

D

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

From: Jean Eger <jeaneger@LanMinds.Com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:24:42 -0700
Subject: [Baren 1688] Re: Baren Digest V4 #282 

According to USC Title 17 Copyrights:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html

A "collective work" is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or
encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and 
independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. 

AND

A "work of visual art" is - 
(1) a painting, drawing, print, or sculpture, existing in a single copy, 
in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively
numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast,
carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively
numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of
the author;  

In other words, if the edition is more than 200, it is considered
commercial art, not fine art.  Now some people may say they don't give a
d--n what the U.S. law is, but it is interesting to know it, even if you
don't give a d--n about it.

The edition is all the same, unless you choose to make it an E.V.  You can
make an edition of red flowers and then print another edition of blue
flowers, if you want to.

Jean

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

From: Bill Ritchie <ritchie@emeralda.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:01:24 -0700
Subject: [Baren 1689] Re: Baren Digest V4 #282 

Thanks, Jean, for that USC citation. Here's a story that came to mind.

Years ago I was managing an artist's shipments from Kathmandu. This
involved me going to the air freight office from time to time to get the
things he was making through customs.

He is an artist who creates designs on his computer, hand-alters them, then
directs their making by handcrafters in Nepal. Things like wool rugs,
tapestries, applique, embroidery, etc.

When the customs officials and I opened the cartons and bales to examine
the work, they were somewhat mystified. Of course my job was to convince
them they were artworks, not commercial works.

The first term they used that I'd never heard was "Free fine art" as though
it is a legal term to describe works that are made freely, without
commercial intent. My friend's art is not the kind of thing everybody
wants, if you get my drift.

The second thing they taught me was funny. They put one piece on the floor,
tilted their heads this way, then the other way, looking at it. Then one
said, "Well, I wouldn't walk on it, so it's art."

Maybe this hasn't got anything to do with the discussion, but it's
something to think about. I love the word "free" and of course if we can we
will give our art away.

Maybe that's what the Internet is partly to encourage in artists.

- - Bill

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

From: David Bull <davebull@woodblock.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:34:20 +0900
Subject: [Baren 1690] Who's who? 

Administrator's message:

I'm sometimes confused by the identity of the sender of some of the
postings, and I think I'm not the only one.  What we see in the From:
field of each message may not be the actual name of the person sending
the mail.

Note that:
"Don S Rich" is actually Andrea Rich

"suzie aar" is Mr. George Aar

"Ramsey Household" is Carolyn Ramsey

"Michelle D. Hudson" is Ray Hudson

... are there some more that I've missed?

These people are presumably using a computer at home which they share
with another person, and they 'lost the toss' when it came time to set
up an email address.

A note to these people - it might make your messages more understandable
to the members at large if you said something like "Hi, this is George"
at the beginning of your posting ...


Dave B.

***

Hello to new member Donna Fenstermaker.  You gave us a URL to see one of
your prints, but I haven't had any luck getting the image.  Is this
perhaps a bit out of date?

http://www.art2u.com/artist/fenstermaker.html 

I'll keep trying ...

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

From: Ray Esposito <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:31:53 -0400
Subject: [Baren 1691] Re:editions/counterpoint 

Julio wrote:
>At the risk of angering the dynamic duo (no, not Batman & Robin, but
>Graham & Ray);

Julio,

Never fear the "dynamic duo".  I think I speak for Batman (I prefer the red
tights) when I say, we love it.  Also, I think he would agree that even
though these items cause a lot of heat occasionally, none of it is
personal.  At least most of the time.  :-)>>>>

However, I am going to take you to task below so get ready to respond.

>PLEASE, please, please ......define the following terms:     Edition,
>Collector, Publisher, Artist
> (hint: the first three have something to do with making money or some
>money related function......)

Come on Julio, this is a little silly.  Collectors and publishers are in it
for the money but number four, the artist is not?  Give me a break.

>I disagree with some of the comments made in earlier postings. There seems
>to be lot of anger surrounding this topics.

There is NEVER any anger.  Some very heart felt feelings perhaps but never
any anger.

>There is nothing wrong with earning a living as an artist and/or wanting
>your art to sell. But when we as ARTISTS
> CONSCIOUSLY limit the number of prints we make in order to infuence
>their $$$ value and or market demand....is that wrong ?

First, I suggest you reread the posts, particularly mine.  At NO TIME will
you see any sentence where I said, wrote, intimated or in any other way
suggested that making a living as an artist was wrong in any mode, shape or
fashion.  They is absolutely NOTHING wrong with limiting your work by
editioning.  I would be hypocritical to suggest otherwise since I edition.

>When a book is printed (and please don't simplify by saying a book is not a
>work of art !) it is perfectly okay to have a second printing, and a third,
>etc, etc, until the demand stops.  The first edition books can have certain
>special or monetary value to collectors. But where would we be today if the
>artists (excuse me, I meant authors) would have said, okay you can print
>20,000 copies and that's it ! No more reprints, no more second printings,
>forget it !

I disagree with you here.  You make some good points but they have nothing
to do with the real world.  Since editioning began around the turn of the
century and took off in the first half of this century, a certain tradition
and acceptance of editioning has taken place.  You cannot compare it with
books since we are talking about apples and oranges.  

Once the "industry" accepted editioning and rules were established over
time, then we have to accept it as real world or refuse to participate.
The other option of course is to lead a new revoluation and return to the
non-editioning world.  Good luck.

Once editioning was established, be it for control, greed or any other
reason, the artist now has two choices.  Do not edition and sell your work
as unlimited prints or edition.

My point is, and for some reason I do not seem to be able to make myself
clear, there is nothing at all wrong with non-editioning.  I support any
artist who decides to non-edition.  Dave believes strongly in
non-editioning.  I will support him in that right to anyone, anywhere.

BUT, and this seems to be the point some of you are missing, if an artist
decides to edition, then that artist MUST follow the rules.  These rules
are no written by any governing body.  They are established by the market.
It is no more diffiuclt than that.

You asked for definitions, one of which was collector.  The definition is
Ray Esposito.  You (this is used in the plural, not singular sense) as an
artist ask me to pay out my money to buy your art and tell me the print is
1/50, I give you my money based on the fact I own one of fifty of your
prints of that work.  If you then sell all fifty and print an additional
fifty, you have lied to me.  That is fraud.  It is also unethical.

However, and I do not want to dwell on all the variations of this
discussion, I am not one who believes the plate must be destroyed.  Some
artists like to take a plate and rework it.  If the changes are
substantial, I have no problem with the artist then running off another
fifty since it is a brand new plate.

If you want my money, do not lie to me.  And if you do lie to me, do not be
surprised if I tell every collector, gallery and source I can find that you
cannot be trusted.

>Again, I quote James Michener from "Tthe Floating World":
> "...neither the medium nor the size of a picture or print is of
>importance when assessing its aesthetic value...it is the quality of
>draughtsftmanship, composition and expressiveness that are the ultimate
>bases of assessment...".
>
>I don't see anything here regarding the number of an edition or regarding
>repeated editions. Some people buy art because they love the work and want
>to have it nearby and others buy art because they see it as a future
>investment.

Julio, I am not sure what you are saying here.  Forgive me for not
understanding you.  Michener is correct in what he says.  But since he was
talkign about the Floating World and these prints were not editioned
anyway, nothing Michener says here is germaine to the subject at hand.

>I side with Dave B.'s  point of view on the subject of numbering prints. I
>hope I did not offend any baren members with my thoughts.  If we choose to
>be artists, we need to live within the anomalities of our times &
>commercial structure.

I could not agree with you more.  If Julio decides he will not edition his
prints, that does not mean I would not add him to my collection.  I do not
buy art because it is editioned.  If I did, I wouldn't buy Dave.  I buy art
because I like it.

All I am saying is, if you do edition, then keep your word and print only
the edition and no more.

>Face it...being an artist  is the only "business" where you can be worth
>more after you are dead than while living.  JULIO.

Ain't it the truth?????

Julio, keep those wonderful thoughts coming.

Cheers

Ray Esposito

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

From: Ray Esposito <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:34:04 -0400
Subject: [Baren 1692] Re: Editioning 

Roger wrote:
>Risking flame, I rant:

Roger, I hope you never think you are flamed.  Even when we express
heartfelt thoughts, I hope the language is meant to educate.

As to your thoughts below, I couldn't agree more.

Cheers

Ray Esposito

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 1693] Re:editions/counterpoint 

Julio wrote:
>>PLEASE, please, please ......define the following terms:     Edition,
>>Collector, Publisher, Artist
>> (hint: the first three have something to do with making money or some
>>money related function......)

Julio,

Please never include Artist with Collectors, and Publishers.

A person that is in the business of creating art, if he is true to his
desires to create, can and is usually interested in making money, but MORE
IMPORTANT,creating images that brings attention to their endeavours and
what they are trying to say is number one. It takes time to get established
as an artist that is making a contribution to the Art Scene be it locally
at first....then regionally.....then nationally..... and maybe world
wide..... if you work very hard.

I have always worked with this in mind and never compromised my work for
the market and the money. For 10 years I refused all commissions that had
any restrictions whatever regarding the image.

>>When a book is printed (and please don't simplify by saying a book is not a
>>work of art !) it is perfectly okay to have a second printing, and a third,
>>etc, etc, until the demand stops.  The first edition books can have certain
>>special or monetary value to collectors. But where would we be today if the
>>artists (excuse me, I meant authors) would have said, okay you can print
>>20,000 copies and that's it ! No more reprints, no more second printings,
>>forget it !

You are off base on this one.  Books and Art are not even in the same league.
I have done both and believe me doing a book is strickly business and the
publisher has to be sure that the contents are such that it will sell.

I don't understand the thinking of some who feel that numbering is pushing
the prices up or making them more expensive.  You have all read how Dave
has calculated the price to do his open editions.  Well hell.....I have
figured the cost of producing 75 images and that is the price they go for.
I also allow the pricing of my originals to have a bearing on the price of
my prints.
If in time the price increase, will, that is what happens to all art.  Some
people start at a $100 level others start at $100,000 level.  It depends on
the level of recognition of each and every artist.

Any artist that cheats will be caught by virture of people like Ray and
Graham waiting out there to disclose them.  I have quite a reputation in
this community for shooting from the hip so to speak.  The article on
Giclee prints -

http://www.islandnet.com/~gscholes/Giclee.html

- has been published in a local magazine that has gone to every household as
well as a print shop that is promoting them as fine art....or should I say
was.

Dave....I wonder if this article is suitable for the encyclopedia???

It has been a most interesting topic and wonder if we should all agree to
disagree.

Regards,

Graham

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

From: "Michelle D. Hudson" <hudson@panther.middlebury.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 07:16:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Baren 1694] Re: Who's who? 

Hi, this is Ray Hudson.  Thanks, Dave, for this suggestion about putting
my name first.   I've wondered if it wasn't confusing--not that I've
written much!   On numbering prints, years ago Dale DeArmond suggested
putting imp. after the signature to show that the artist was the person
actually pulling the pring.   I don't do that, however.   I think a
numbered print will inevitably be "looked at" a bit differently than an
unnumbered one.   Even if it's one of an edition of 40,000, I'll view it a
bit differently--probably with a few giggles.   If prints are numbered,
then each in the set should be pretty much alike (a problem I have because
I'm too impatient to not try a slightly different color, etc.)   

Lu Fang,
a woodcut artisit in Hangzhou, PRC, said he usually intends to make an
edition of 60 but very often doesn't get around to actually printing that
many except of the most popular prints.   And about old blocks:  one
advantage of using planks is that the blocks can be assembled into
wonderful wooden collages, sanded, paint carried here and there across
them to tie them together, the whole thing sanded, oiled, etc.   This
doesn't work quite so well with plywood.   I've made too of these--one for
an elementary school's percent for art project and the intent was to allow
kids to do "rubbings" from different sections if they wanted to--to get
their hands on the piece and feel the wood.  Unfortunately, most of the
teachers in the school are a bit reluctant to allow this.   

Ray H > > . > > 

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

End of Baren Digest V4 #283
***************************