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

Baren Digest             Tuesday, 24 November 1998     Volume 05 : Number 353

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

From: amoss@mindspring.com (john amoss)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:03:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Baren 2187] roger's bee 

Roger;
I have not seen any comments in Baren on your bee/flower exchange print.
<http://www.inquo.net/~beckorro/woodcut/bee1b.jpg>

Maybe everyone has more self-control than I have and chose not to take a peek.

I think it looks great and look forward to seeing the final!

- -John

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

From: Elizabeth Atwood <elizuno@midcoast.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:52:46 -0400
Subject: [Baren 2188] Re: Boxing with language 

Dave wrote:
>... whether or not to discard the 'seconds', those prints that didn't come
>out good enough, being perhaps a bit mis-registered, etc.

Dave......
I think it is a good question for all of us. In reading the responses, I
find Bill Ritchie's quote "I am not a machine!" the most profound.
Real "goofs" can be easily discarded.....but minor flaws are sometimes the
very thing that makes a single print more valuable to its owner.
I do not print an edition all at one time, so I often have a minor
variation in color......IF it should be major, then I would tuck that one
away for my own reference.

Thank you for the pictures of your exchange print beginning. I am at that
stage with my print........happily using some of the valuable hints from
the Baren pages.........

Eliz Atwood

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

From: "Roger A. Ball" <beckorro@inquo.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:33:15 -0700
Subject: [Baren 2189] Rejected prints 

Dave and others:

I always hated the fact that there had to be rejected prints because I felt
that at least some of the culls had their own merits; let alone the cost of
paper!  I came up with two ideas:  I give away some culls signed on the
back--usually with an inscription that says that this print is a cull from
thus and such edition.  Several of my poorer (less well off?) friends are
very happy with their rejected prints.  I don't have a problem with this
ethically (although others might) because the prints are not numbered and
aren't signed on the front.  

Secondly, I decided that on some editions I would have a small reject
edition (say the same number of prints as APs in the series) and I label
them as such on the title line and sign them.  This idea seemed
well-received and even the galleries I deal with didn't balk at the idea.
Since it says right on it that it was rejected, I found it drummed up more
business because the people who saw the rejects wanted to see how much
better the _good_ ones were.  Happily, this means they are really looking
at the print critically and some have opted to buy...

I can see how some would find either of these ideas offensive.  Your call.

Cherrio,

- -Roger
http://www.inquo.net/~beckorro/woodcut/woodcut.htm

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

From: jimandkatemundie@juno.com (James G Mundie)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:49:55 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2190] various 

Yesterday, I had  written to Dave:

I have been thinking of your bonfire quandary.  If you feel that those
'misprints' are an insult to your present skills, then by all means
discard them.  A potter friend of mine says that she learned not to
bother to keep the first hundred or so objects from her wheel because
when she started to become really skilled, those early efforts were the
greatest source of embarrassment.  True, it is much easier and satisfying
to break an unwanted bit of crockery.  

We should all hope to be remembered for our best efforts.
  	
If you feel that those smudged and misprinted copies cannot compare with
your present skills, perhaps it is best they should meet the flames.  You
wouldn't expect a beginning painter to save every fumbling attempt to
describe the figure.  However, I recommend that you don't consign every
misprint to a fiery end.  Keep a few representative copies around.  It
can be both amusing and humbling to look back on your early efforts. 
Keeping these around and looking on them now and again allows you to see
how far you've come, but also provides the incentive to keep getting
better.

***

Julio wrote:

>Twenty-nine bottles of beer on the wall, twenty-nine bottles of beer....
>Take one down, pass it around....
>Twenty-eight bottles of beer on the wall.

Wouldn't it be more simple to just buy a case and let everyone have their
own bottle?

Seriously, though, this gives me the opportunity to add a couple of
things to the collective knowledge of the first [Baren] exchange.  Now
that Graham and Elissa have bowed out, perhaps you are saying to
yourself, "Oh, now I only have to print such-and-such a number."  I
encourage everyone to still print at least twenty-nine copies of their
print... it'll be good for you.  If between now and February 1st 1999
(the deadline) others should drop out of the exchange (heaven forfend!) I
will return any "unused" copies of your print with your bundle.

I should also announce that Graham's dropping out when he did allowed
Dave and me to correct an unfortunate circumstance.  You may all remember
that Haydee initially expressed interest in the exchange, but wound up in
the hospital and was not able to finalize her commitment by that
deadline.  I am pleased to say that Haydee has accepted our invitation
(through the kind offices of Julio), late though it was, to join the
exchange.   

For anyone that may be saying, "Hey, I want in too!"  I'm afraid we won't
be letting in anyone else at this late point in the game.  Haydee was
there from the beginning, so it only seemed fair to re-include her.  If
we started to let in other folks who expressed interest after the
deadline, we would merely be trying to maintain an arbitrary number of
participants.  Besides, it would hardly be fair to ask someone to rush
through a block to have it ready in time for the deadline (which is --
ahem! -- 1 February 1999).

It seems that we're are going to have some really great prints in the
exchange, so carve!  Print!

***

Graham was giddy with delight over a recent 'net sale and asked if anyone
else was having luck making sales via the internet. 

Well, Graham, I haven't seen any actual cash yet, but having my work out
there to be seen has brought a few interested parties calling.  I think
the potential for income is there, but I wish it would start making
itself a reality for all of us soon... I could use that money for Xmas!

Mise le meas,
James Mundie, Philadelphia USA

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

From: Julio.Rodriguez@walgreens.com
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:51:33 -0600
Subject: [Baren 2191] re: rejects 

If any of the printmakers in Baren would like to send me one of their
rejects and/or mis-registered off prints; I will be very happy to add them
on to my collection. Oh, by the way, if you come across any 'rejected'
prints by Picasso, Dali or any other well known printmaker.... I 'll take
those too. They are probably not worth much. Thanks in advance!

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

From: Julio.Rodriguez@walgreens.com
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:29:25 -0600
Subject: [Baren 2192] re: Bee sting 

Hi Roger, I too enjoyed your bee print and all the other pics in your web
site (I liked the picture of the moon!). How did you get the color
gradation on the bee background, was that two colors on one block  on one
impression ? or two different blocks ?
Also on the village print, I think there is quite a degree of complexity
here. Is the design original ? You did a wonderful job with the
perspective. The more I go back and look at the print the more I enjoy it.
There is one cloud that kinds of looks like a woman
swimmer....unintentional ? The guy inside the window...the white area next
to him....does that equate to the sun
 outside ?  The only suggestion I have is perhaps a darker shade for the
foreground building to accentuate even more the perspective. Nice job.

Thanks. JULIO

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

From: David Bull <davebull@woodblock.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:36:43 +0900
Subject: [Baren 2193] Phantom posts and Reject prints ... 

Some of you may have been puzzled by some 'phantom' posts that have
appeared recently.  It seems the Majordomo server thinks that it is
still Halloween, and is sending out phantom versions of previous posts,
but attributed to different authors - seemingly selected at random from
the subscriber list.  [Baren 2182] was one of these.

The support staff are 'working on it', and the problem may, or may not
be, solved ...

***

Lots of interesting thoughts on the 'reject' prints.  There are actually
a few issues mixed up together here.  

Gary pointed out that the paper-maker shouldn't send me defective sheets
of paper, etc., but the cases he cited were of people _manufacturing_ a
product to a standard specification.  In those cases the line between
what should go out, and what should be culled, is quite clear and sharp
- - whether or not the product meets the stated specification is _fact_
not _opinion_.

Jack thought that I was making:
> a distinction between your "seconds"
> that are not up to your standards, and other prints that have been
> spoiled during printing with smeared ink or mold spots, etc. I assume
> you discarded those during printing. 

Actually, I lump all this stuff together in that drawer.  The defining
point for being a 'reject'? - simply something that I don't want to send
out to my collectors.

Elizabeth mentioned that:
>minor flaws are sometimes the
>very thing that makes a single print more valuable to its owner

but this is very much the viewpoint of an artist, not a technician like
myself.  And my collectors too (for the most part), would find any
mis-registered colour to be very definitely a flaw.  In the kind of
prints I make, colour is either _in_ the lines, or _out_ ...

Bill Ritchie's point that one's own standards are constantly changing,
even during the course of one day's printing, emphasizes one of the
points that is a giant headache for me. 

My standards too have changed greatly over the ten years of this
project.  So what do I do with orders that come in now for the entire
set of 100 prints?  If I apply my current 'standards' to the older
prints in the set, I would have to throw them all away - and the carved
blocks too!  But I can't do that ... and to these people I openly
explain the situation, and talk about this.  And at the gallery where I have
the entire set on open display, people enjoy seeing the progression from
first to last ...  

How do other [Baren] members handle this?  Will you still sell prints
that you made some years ago, even though they obviously don't meet your
current standards?   Dave S. - you've been at this for decades, what do
you do about this?

And Jim wrote:
> We should all hope to be remembered for our best efforts.

And I suppose that this is the important point.  It's why Brahms burned
manuscripts ...  and I guess it's why I'll burn most of those prints.

But I _still_ do think that there is something dishonest about it.  It's
like trying to manipulate history - to paint out part of the picture so
nobody will be able to see what was there ...

***

Jack, I was also curious about your comment:
> In my work, when a restoration job does not quite satisfy
> me, I can only start over again on the same piece, usually at
> considerable time and expense.

I always thought you guys were like heart surgeons, you only got one
kick at the cat.  If you muck it up, _can_ you actually start over
again?

***

Exchange note: the cases are now ordered, and should be delivered to me
by December 15th, ready to be shipped over to Jim a few days later. 
Things are rolling along ...

Dave

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

From: Julio.Rodriguez@walgreens.com
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:57:11 -0600
Subject: [Baren 2194] re: rice paste inquiry 

Dave replied to a private mail:
>The baby cereal idea sounds OK I guess.  What's in there - just starch
>and water, right?  Why don't you bounce this off the group and see if
>they can find any reasons why not ...

I tried making some rice paste to mix with my watercolors out of Gerber's
baby rice cereal (the real fine stuff). I mixed it about 1 part powder to
8-10 water and boiled for about 4-5 minutes until it started to turn white
and syrupy. I proofed a few prints using this paste and seems ok, (the
results were-not but that's just my technique (or lack of!)).
Has anybody tried rice cereal ? Do you any reason why it would or would not
work ? What do others use ?

Thanks. JULIO

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

From: "Fatima Ferreira" <fami@mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:37:39 -0000
Subject: [Baren 2195] Re: Various ... c

Gary,
I visited the calligraphy site you suggested and I found it really
interesting, lots of usefull information. Thank you very much,

Fatima

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 16:59:50 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2196] Reject prints ... 

The work that we do as printmakers be it Woodblock, Etchingc Litho, or what
ever, have an accepted term...... ORIGINAL PRINT. No other printmaking can
use this term in all honesty.....although some of the people doing
reproduction prints have used the term.  We won't get into that will
we.......

What makes them original?  ....sure it is the variation one from the next,
and as long as the blemish does not distract from the image then I use them
with pride.  I am not a technician. As an artist this is a mark of my
personality. It set me apart for others.  If your personality won't let you
sell an image with a mark, a minor register or what ever then so be it.

The craft and perfection of printmaking is secondary to meand does not come
into play.
The image and its message is the most important aspect.

Graham/Victoria BC eh

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 17:05:09 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2197] Re: rice paste inquiry 

Julio wrote....
>I tried making some rice paste to mix with my watercolors out of Gerber's
>baby rice cereal (the real fine stuff).................
>Has anybody tried rice cereal ? Do you any reason why it would or would not
>work ? What do others use ?

If there are no additives that would cause colour changes and or affect the
paper then what the hell go for it.

If you did'nt like the result of your print you could chop it up fine in a
blender and eat it. (<:

Graham/Victoria BC eh

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

From: Gary Luedtke <GLuedtke@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:28:24 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2198] Phantom posts and Reject prints ... 

Dave and all,

I think there's a difference between work that is flawed, such as inkspots,
out of register work and so on, and work that is simply indicative of a
stage in your artistic  development.   I think one must set a threshold of
quality for your work.   That threshhold is your reputation.  If you accept
less than the best  of your work,  your reputation will reflect that.    
If the quality of your work improves, great.  If you pass off work you know
to be inferior, you'll only gain a reputation of being lazy.

Your ten year run of a series was bound to show an artistic development as
your skills improved.  The conflict of now juxtaposing the early efforts
with your most recent ones causes you some concern.  This is not a problem,
as you have shown the development openly for the last ten years.  There is
no deception here, that is the" truth".   But within a given print run,
should you accidentally spoil a print, and then seek to redeem it with a
reasoning like, "well, mistakes happen, why should I try to hide it?"  You
must not lower your values to begin excepting mistakes.   You generally get
better when you figure out a way to reduce your mistakes, not accept them. 
 Always give nothing but your best, and  hopefully your best keeps getting
better.    

Now to your problem of what to do if more orders come in for the whole set
of ten years work.  You have several choices.   Explain the development of
your skills throughout the ten year series and sell them a set "as is", or,
start carving new blocks and reprint the whole set.  In that case you may
very well get to the end of _that_ series having progressed even further,
and turn around and start over again, so to spend the rest of your life. 
Or... stop selling them altogether and start something new.   As you are
beginning a new, uncertain venture this coming year, and are hoping to
augment your income with some further sales of this Poets series,  the
first option seems like the practical thing to do.
Nothing dishonest in that.

Keep the rejects in the drawer, or fire up the hibachi, that's your call.

Just my opinion.

Gary

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

From: Jack Reisland <jreis@ptinet.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:27:15 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2199] Re: Phantom posts and Reject prints ... 

Dave wrote:
> Jack, I was also curious about your comment:
> > In my work, when a restoration job does not quite satisfy
> > me, I can only start over again on the same piece, usually at
> > considerable time and expense.

  For some years now all conservation and restoration work is ideally made
completely reversible, that is, it can be removed with no ill effects to the
object at any time in the future, allowing for improvements in both restoration
techniques and materials. This also allows for the  more immediate
re-restoration of an object if unfortunately necessary. This does not mean that
it eliminates completely those nights of missed sleep, fits of momentary
despair, and occasional losses of sums of income. At least, unlike the heart
surgeon, no one dies when things go wrong, we just age a lot.

Jack Reisland

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

End of Baren Digest V5 #353
***************************