[Baren]: The mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking. Baren Digest Sunday, 11 October 1998 Volume 05 : Number 309 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: StudioJNC@aol.com Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 14:19:10 EDT Subject: [Baren 1852] Re: Teachers ... Dave Darning needles are like sewing needles. They come in a variety of sizes and strengths just like sewing needles. I think they are a little more varied as darning is by hand. I have a package and they are thin and thick, long and short. I insert about three different sizes into three corks. The corks that come with wine. They work fine for me. Of course if you do not drink wine perhaps if you searched amongst your friends you might find a wine imbibing person. I really think there is not too much difference between sewing needles and darning needles. Jeanne If you get a darning needle, you can darn the holes in your socks!!! ------------------------------ From: Angela Oates Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 15:39:04 -0500 Subject: [Baren 1853] Re: Kunc and Frankenthaler Daniel Kelly wrote: > In my estimation print > process gets in the way of making fine art because aesthetics are not based > on techniques.. Its the reason printmakers are generally inferior artists to > say painters. If you don't know what to say then thinking of how you > form words is hardly the way to create a sentence is it? Well excuse me, but I do not hold the same view that printmakers are generally inferior artisits to painters. Do you feel this way? I think the process one uses does matter. Process matters regardless of which media an artist uses. If the process gets in the way, then maybe the process needs to be developed to the point that it facilitates the image making and not impedes it. ..When an artist really rolls....process and idea seem to merge... I find the printmaking process amplifies my thoughts concerning an image.....as a way of working through things......a discovery that unfolds...and the process helps bring that to fruition. If you don't know the words....you can learn them if you wish to make a sentence. Angela ------------------------------ From: Graham Scholes Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 13:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Baren 1854] Re: Teachers ... >If you get a darning needle, you can darn the holes in your socks!!! Well I'll be darn..... Graham ------------------------------ From: Julio.Rodriguez@walgreens.com Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 17:01:53 -0500 Subject: [Baren 1855] re: inferior artists? Daniel writes: > print process gets in the way of making fine art because aesthetics > are not based on techniques.. Its the reason printmakers are generally > inferior artists to say painters.... I disagree that the technique used determines if the work is "fine-art" or not. Certain images are more suited to specific media and it's up to the artist to form a successful "marriage" between image and media. Some images just don't workout well for printmaking. The artist's skill level and control of his tools play a secondary role to design and media selection. Printmaking suffers in the eyes of critics perhaps because of the preparatory steps required to obtain the final product and the "reproduction-process" mindset. In the end, it is the final product that should be up for comparison, regardless of the process & techniques used. On a lighter note:...... I was browsing thru the art sites last night and came upon a review of a "show" last year at the Guggenheim Museum. The artist name escapes me now. This show consisted of twenty-two female models (some nude and some in bikinis) all wearing high-heels & posing still for (I think) a 1- 2 hour session. Is this "performance" art if everyone was still ? Does this fall under the category of fine-art ? How come I did not come up with an idea like that ? ------------------------------ From: Daniel Kelly Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 13:07:39 +0000 Subject: [Baren 1856] Re: inferior artists? Julio wrote: > I disagree that the technique used determines if the work is "fine-art" ... Yes, Julio. Me too. " in the way of making fine art .... aesthetics are not based on techniques." So if one wanted to be an inferior artist they might concentrate on technique. No? And Angela Oates writes: >I do not hold the same view that printmakers are >generally inferior artists to painters. Do you feel this way? I think >the process one uses does matter." Yes I do think so .This is because all important ideas in the history of art stand out in our memory not for their technique BUT for their idea. Do you think of silk-screen technique when you think of Andy Worhol? Andy contributed to our ideas about the subjects of art,..... not technique. Can you name an important historical figure whose contribution to the dialogue of aesthetics came about through printing process? I suppose minor figures have made those contributions. If in general you could remove the impediments to communicating, our thoughts would be engaged directly. Luckily for painters the process is more direct. Angela adds: >If you don't know the words....you can learn them if you wish to make a sentence." Good. Of course you imply that you have an idea first of what to say. Your sentence is like describing language development in children, When you do speak, it's what you say that matters. An idiot with a good voice is like technique with no ideas. Now I suppose my bid is up to four bits. D. ----------------------------- From: Angela Oates Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 07:16:59 -0500 Subject: [Baren 1857] Re: inferior artists? Daniel, The main point that I was trying to make in my last post was that when and idea and process are really working together....then perhaps the best work emerges. It seems from what you addressed that I did not communicate that. And in keeping with your word analogy, the important thing is the journey....not in thinking of the bones in our legs as we walk. Hope you have a good day, Angela ------------------------------ End of Baren Digest V5 #309 ***************************