[Baren]: The mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking. Baren Digest Thursday, 7 January 1999 Volume 06 : Number 402 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ray Esposito" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:09:48 -0500 Subject: [Baren 2545] bang, bang Hi Folks Once a month I head for the big city to enter two prints in the Art League of Old Town Alexandria, Virginia monthly juried exhibition. It is a six hour trip but once a month isn't bad. Once I drop off the prints before noon, I then have to wait until 5pm to see if I was accepted or rejected and then begin the trip home. In the meantime I usually run errands or visit art galleries in the area.. Ths time however, while on that modern wonder of Washington, D.C., the beltway (those who know, get the sarcasm), the transmission on my car blew and it blew good. Here I was in Washington, three hours from home and no car. To make this short, the repairs were more than a new used car would cost. So I came in a Wagoneer and went home in a Bonneville. It took two days, a couple of maxed out credit cards, a rental car, hotel, etc. and a lot of frustration to get everything settled and back home. I would say this was an expensive art show. AND, to top it off, I didn't get in. Ahhhh well, the joys of being an artist. :-)> BUT...I am back and raring to go so I will be answering some of the long list of recent posts and did a few last night when I got back. Cheers ;-)> Ray ------------------------------ From: Elizabeth Atwood Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:15:57 -0400 Subject: [Baren 2546] Gary's post Gary......please post again your website? address with some preliminary work.....which started all this discussion of computer use. I think I tried to bring it up and was not successful....would like to try again......Eliz ------------------------------ From: "Ray Esposito" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:57:47 -0500 Subject: [Baren 2547] Re: Gary's post charset="iso-8859-1" >Gary......please post again your website? address with some preliminary >work.....which started all this discussion of computer use. >I think I tried to bring it up and was not successful....would like to try >again......Eliz > Elizabeth After viewing Gary's website, please refrain from saying too many nice things about his site or his works. With Graham and I suddenly being so polite to him, Gary is having a difficult time handling it all. :-)> Cheers Ray ------------------------------ From: jimandkatemundie@juno.com (James G Mundie) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:16:38 -0500 Subject: [Baren 2548] Re: Baren Digest V6 #401 Carolyn wrote: >P.S. Has anyone contacted Patrick Press (I think that's the name) in >Canada? I sent them an E-mail, but never got an answer about their >presses. Would someone send their E-mail address again, please? One of Dan Patrick's presses is on its way to me now (although I hesitate to say on this forum that it is an etching press). The winter weather and the holidays seems to have slowed down the shippers considerably. I had hoped it would get here two weeks ago and I'm getting a bit impatient to give it a whirl. Nevertheless, I have heard nothing but good words about the quality of Dan's presses. Also, like Ray said, the price is unbeatable (thank you weakened Canadian dollar!). I suppose I could go out now and get press blankets and ink, etc., but I feel the superstitious urge not to get all of that until the press is here. *** Graham wrote about his transfer method: >With the photo copy in place, (.....IMPORTANT......IN A WELL >VENTILATED ROOM OR OUTSIDE ON A PORCH), take a small >amount of Lacquer Tinner on a small clean cloth and smear this on the back >of the paper, in a sufficient amount to allow the tinner to penetrate through the >paper and desolve the toner. Presto the image is transferred on the wood. Be >carefull that you do not apply to much thinner causing the toner to run and >smear. Practice this a few times and any spare wood to get a clean sharp >transfer of line. As Brad and others have mentioned, lacquer thinner is extremely nasty stuff -- so take every precaution. Lacquer thinner and a bamboo spoon was a method I was taught to transfer photocopies onto litho stones or plates, but we always did it under a very powerful fume hood and with gloves _and_ ventilator masks. This was all extremely clumsy, but necessary when working with a ridiculously virulent nerve toxin. If you really need to try it though, I might point out something that myself and friends have noticed over the years about photocopy transfers: Some photocopier toners do a better job of this than others. I've found some toners to became a gooey sticky stringy mass, whereas others merely transfer as a fine powder. After a survey of five different machines, students at Fleisher Art Memorial have told me that the copier in the supply store allows for the best transfers (and they consequently beg me to unlock the door for them). I found that the best way to prevent smearing is to apply a small amount of thinner, and then allow the liquid to evaporate. When the paper looks dry (although somewhat more transparent) rub the back of the paper onto the transfer surface with a wooden spoon. That should keep the toner from pooling and blurring. For all your sakes, though, I recommend you try Roxanne's safer method first. Mise le meas, James Mundie, Philadelphia USA ------------------------------ From: Graham Scholes Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:47:49 -0800 Subject: [Baren 2549] Re: Gary's post Amen, Amen, Amen. The Flasher Graham ------------------------------ From: Graham Scholes Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:45:52 -0800 Subject: [Baren 2550] Re: bang, bang Ray, Truly sorry to hear this. I can relate to the story and the apprehension and stress you were under. Take a deep breath have a scotch and welcome back. Regards, The Flasher Graham ------------------------------ From: Graham Scholes Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:58:47 -0800 Subject: [Baren 2551] Re: Baren Digest V6 #401 Jame wrote.... >When the paper looks >dry (although somewhat more transparent) rub the back of the paper onto >the transfer surface with a wooden spoon. That should keep the toner >from pooling and blurring. If you are using basswood don't rub hard with that spoon, you will have ridge marks on the surface of the plate. I ball up a cloth very tightly and use that......works like a whislte. And... That etching press will allow you to do waterless lithographs James. The Flasher Graham ------------------------------ From: "Ray Esposito" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:11:52 -0500 Subject: [Baren 2552] Re: Baren Digest V6 #401 >That etching press will allow you to do waterless lithographs James. Explain???? Cheers Ray ------------------------------ From: "Ray Esposito" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:11:06 -0500 Subject: [Baren 2553] Re: bang, bang >Take a deep breath have a scotch and welcome back. A bourbon and branch water was better Cheers Ray ------------------------------ From: Wanda Robertson Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 10:39:37 -0700 Subject: [Baren 2554] Flashing? Cutters,etc. Alright, I'll bite......Graham, why are you now calling yourself "the Flasher" ? Have you taken up a new hobby that we were previously not aware of? These discussions of transferring and toxics, etc. are very interesting. I hope my past furniture re-finishing experiences haven't doomed me to a horrible future. Great! Something else to worry about! As many of you already know, I'm just a beginner at print-making of any kind, and am taking a class at this time. My instructor suggested for this assignment, that I use the all-shina plywood from McClain's for a large black & white print. I think I will do that - already have purchased some cutting tools, a 2.0 Sankaku To (v-gouge), a 4.5mm Maru To (u-gouge) & a teeny,tiny 1.0mm Maru To u-gouge for very fine lines. I *love* them! There is no comparison with the speedball cutters, even on linoleum blocks. Wanda ------------------------------ From: Jacob Roquet Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 14:32:57 -0500 Subject: [Baren 2555] Digital Art I am new to this site for a couple of weeks and have just sat back and enjoyed the dialogue and comraderie. Baren is sort of like walking into a bar in a town away from home and overhearing some good friends at the next table share stories and their lives. You folks are unique on the Internet. This truly is one of the first listserves I have not cancelled within three or four days. It seems to be OK to introduce oneself so I will. May name is Jake Roquet. I live in beautiful New Bern, North Carolina, 35 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. I learned the printmaking (predominantly etching/intaglio) trade at Indiana University in the early seventies with Rudy Pozzatti, Marvin Lowe, Jack Damar (visiting artist from Madison, WI) and an incredible group of graduate students. I transfered to and was graduated from Duke University, went to graduate school at UNC-Chapel Hill and later taught printmaking and drawing at Duke in Durham, North Carolina in the early 1980s. Through the years I have moved in and out of my art life. Today, I am heavily involved in the technology sector (this is my "secret life") and am currently rebuilding my printmaking workshop. I have a large Griffin etching press, an 1880s "royal-" size Wessler printing press, several turn-of-the-century proofing presses and associated "stuff." Additional thoughts: 1. As others have said better than I, I thank all of you for your excitement about printmaking. I have not seen this kind of comraderie since undergraduate and graduate schools. Because of the shared need of presses, acid baths and such I have always felt printmakers were more "social" than painters. I have missed working with other printmakers and now "virtually" it's back. 2. As far as listserves go, you folks are outspoken, yet respectful and courteous. This is refreshing on the Internet. 3. Now, the reason I am on in the first place. We'll thank Ray for bringing me out of the closet. Digital Art! To quote Ray: "I simply do not consider it worthy art." "My other problem with digital art is the old one of what is an original print." My thoughts? A tool is a tool. A process is a process. I use Illustrator and Adobe Freehand extensively. I actually enjoy "drawing" with these tools. I use either a stylus or the mouse. The process is just like drawing with pen. The only difference is a physical spacial anomaly. My hand is over here to the right yet my "mark" is 20 inches to the left. I have caught myself literally recognizing this phenomenon and yet, once I made this spacial leap of perception, it felt just like using an ink pen. The line quality is unique. For dashes you have to stop and enter a parameter setting. I have also scanned in scratchboard drawings and then finished them on PhotoShop with very unique results! I have editioned several of these works. I used a laser printer. I printed them on rag paper. I printed them in editions of 25. (The same number I usually do for most traditional editions.) Now the fun part. When I finished the print run, I "struck" the print by adding an "X" across the image and the printed that. How's that for traditional printmaking. This my favorite print and are the ones I have framed in my house. My artist friends understand it. But only my digital friends (does this make them virtual friends?) understand the irony in this because they know this is a moot process since I have every "state" backed up on my removable cartridges. My point: drawing using digital tools is unique and can produce an image that can ONLY be created from this medium. But you can apply traditional "rules," run an edition, and then strike it. The digital guys and gals can play the game as well as any traditional printmaker (I am one of those as well) And as far as critics and collectors go? They'll catch on one day. But just like the stock market, you don't buy stocks when they talk about it in USA Today. And then again, who cares. We do this stuff because the juices just get flowin' some days. Sorry for the length. Hope this adds to the dialogue. :-) Regards, Jake ------------------------------ From: kim and paul Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 12:52:42 -0600 Subject: [Baren 2556] non-toxic transfers I use wintergreen oil for transferring images to my plates. But I want to know where I can buy Soy 2000 and Wonder Wash. I teach printmaking workshops and would like to use something less toxic than the wintergreen. Thanks, Kim ------------------------------ From: Julio.Rodriguez@walgreens.com Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:56:09 -0600 Subject: [Baren 2557] re: welcome Hi Jacob, Welcome to Baren. Is there any place in the web to see your work ? Computer or otherwise ! ------------------------------ From: "Ray Esposito" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:01:42 -0500 Subject: [Baren 2558] Re: Digital Art >Baren is sort of like walking into a bar in a town away from home and >overhearing some good friends at the next table share stories and their >lives. You folks are unique on the Internet. This truly is one of the first >listserves I have not cancelled within three or four days. Well put. >Additional thoughts: >1. As others have said better than I, I thank all of you for your >excitement about printmaking. I have not seen this kind of comraderie since >undergraduate and graduate schools. Because of the shared need of presses, >acid baths and such I have always felt printmakers were more "social" than >painters. I have missed working with other printmakers and now "virtually" >it's back. > >2. As far as listserves go, you folks are outspoken, yet respectful and >courteous. This is refreshing on the Internet. A BIG welcome to Baren. Your thoughts are well made and being so into digital art, you will make a major contribution to Baren. The main purpose of Baren of course is woodcut and most of what we talk about does and rightly should remain there. But as you have noticed, we are free to bring up many areas of printmaking and some real oddball subjects, and because we all respect each other, even when cutting each others throats, we say what we think and feel. That can only be for the good. >3. Now, the reason I am on in the first place. We'll thank Ray for bringing >me out of the closet. Digital Art! Always glad to open new doors. >To quote Ray: "I simply do not consider it worthy art." "My other problem >with digital art >is the old one of what is an original print." > >My thoughts? A tool is a tool. A process is a process. I use Illustrator >and Adobe Freehand extensively. I actually enjoy "drawing" with these >tools. I use either a stylus or the mouse. The process is just like drawing >with pen. The only difference is a physical spacial anomaly. My hand is >over here to the right yet my "mark" is 20 inches to the left. I have >caught myself literally recognizing this phenomenon and yet, once I made >this spacial leap of perception, it felt just like using an ink pen. The >line quality is unique. For dashes you have to stop and enter a parameter >setting. I have also scanned in scratchboard drawings and then finished >them on PhotoShop with very unique results! No one would agree with this statement more than me. Unfortunately, "in my opinion", I simply have not see digital art I would git a nickel for. I would love to see soem of your works. ANy chance you might be posting on the net? >I have editioned several of these works. I used a laser printer. I printed >them on rag paper. I printed them in editions of 25. (The same number I >usually do for most traditional editions.) Now the fun part. When I >finished the print run, I "struck" the print by adding an "X" across the >image and the printed that. How's that for traditional printmaking. This my >favorite print and are the ones I have framed in my house. My artist >friends understand it. But only my digital friends (does this make them >virtual friends?) understand the irony in this because they know this is a >moot process since I have every "state" backed up on my removable >cartridges. Interesting approach. But unless you destroy the plate, the edition is never really "limited". Sicne the possibility of taking the print from the cartridge and removing the X, doesn't this defeat the idea of a limited edition, then defacing the plate, never to be used again? >My point: drawing using digital tools is unique and can produce an image >that can ONLY be created from this medium. But you can apply traditional >"rules," run an edition, and then strike it. The digital guys and gals can >play the game as well as any traditional printmaker (I am one of those as >well) And as far as critics and collectors go? They'll catch on one day. >But just like the stock market, you don't buy stocks when they talk about >it in USA Today. And then again, who cares. We do this stuff because the >juices just get flowin' some days. This point will produce some great debate in the future. >Sorry for the length. Hope this adds to the dialogue. :-) No long at all. Just keep those great thoughts, ideas and suggestions coming. You are going to be a major asset to Baren. Cheers Ray ------------------------------ From: Graham Scholes Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:42:03 -0800 Subject: [Baren 2559] Re: Baren Digest V6 #401 >Explain???? Explain ........ The Flasher or Waterless Lithographs?? ------------------------------ From: "Ray Esposito" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:55:51 -0500 Subject: [Baren 2560] Re: Baren Digest V6 #401 Flasher? Sounds like an old fa** reliving his youth. I was referring to waterless lithos Cheers Ray ------------------------------ From: Gary Luedtke Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:03:06 -0500 Subject: [Baren 2561] Digital Art Welcome to the group, Jake. We are an increasingly diversifying group in terms of interests, talents, types of printing done, viewpoints, and geographical origins which should make this an ever more interesting site. Dave is temporarily away becoming famous, so we are holding down the fort until his return, and we extend a warm welcome to you as well as other recent members. Gary ------------------------------ From: Gregory Robison Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 13:57:11 +0300 Subject: [Baren 2562] Welcome; Digital art; Toxicity Kampala, 8 January 1998 1. Welcome I am too new in the Company to welcome you officially, Jake, but allow me to hold your coat while the tenured members do so. I have appreciated many of the same things about this group that you mentioned, and although I have mostly been hanging out at the paper cutter listening to all the art-talk and letting them top my drink, I have vowed to contribute substantively to the conversation at the party soon. Real soon. 2. Digital art Meanwhile, regarding your "a tool is a tool" point, printmakers have always been highly opportunistic, grabbing whatever is within reach to make images. Processes are mixed up now as never before, and this stresses some buyers and patrons (and critics). But maybe the confusion about how something was produced is not such a bad thing. Picasso said: "I want to get to the state where nobody can tell how a picture of mine was made. ...I want nothing but emotion to be given off by it." That's from the program notes of his show at the 1939 World's Fair in New York. (Ray and Graham can tell you more about it. I think they were there.) Your treatment of "limited edition" digital prints reminds me of the situation in the earliest days of typographic printing, when the new moveable-type technology was used primarily to imitate the old technology (i.e., hand-lettered books). The buying public of those days said, "Great, you've got a press. So what's a press? Make the book look exactly like what comes out of Brother Scrivner's shop, only cheaper, and I'll buy." Yet it is amazing how quickly that first generation of printers completely transformed the art/industry, producing works that could never have been done in the scriptorium. I don't think it will be too long before we let "direct method" arts -- carving in wood or whatever -- be what they are, and let digital soar into new areas, without the one trying to imitate the other. But people probably won't buy digital work as "limited edition" art they way they do with the direct method (and therefore inherently truly limited) stuff. And, of course, direct method artists can, should and -- most importantly - -- will use the digital arts to enhance and change the way they work. 3. Toxicity I have much appreciated all those who have been contributing on the point about friendlier solvents than the ones we may have grown up with (but apparently will not grow old with). I read in the catalogue of Rembrandt Graphic Arts that their "Really Works Hand Cleaner, non-abrasive" can be used to clean ink off relief blocks. Since this is a non-toxic solvent (and smells like lemon. Yum.), and can double as hand-cleaner, this sounds interesting. Does anybody have any experience with this? Gregory Robison ------------------------------ End of Baren Digest V6 #402 ***************************