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

Baren Digest               Friday, 8 January 1999       Volume 06 : Number 404

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

From: "Ray Esposito" <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:33:05 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2577] Re: Baren Digest V6 #402 

Jean wrote:
>That was 10 years ago and I'm still alive.

And no one is happier about it than me.

Cheers

Ray

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

From: Jacob Roquet <roquet@coastalnet.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:49:53 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2578] Re: Digital Art 

Graham wrote:
>So why does these here juices not flow with the real stuff like, pen,
>pencil, ink, watercolour, oils etc etc etc.  Gosh I wish somebody could
>explain this.

:-) So a computer and mouse is not real stuff..
The litho process didn't exist til what?, the late 1700s (Senefelder) ,
etching in the 1300s, silk screen a bit before that. (Be patient here with
my history, though I am relatively close on my dates.) Even the pencil
itself is relatively new. Printmaking is a new phenomenon in the scheme of
things and used with a few exceptions as a commercial process relatively
til the mid-to late 1800s and not really did we have printmakers trained
and accepted as artist since the 50s (The mother of all printmaking schools
... University of Iowa!) which is in my lifetime. These ARE new
technologies. Painters used to paint on rocks, wood and skins... with burnt
sticks, fingers and reeds...oh, for those heady days of real stuff.

And to really pull it back to baren... how far removed is your print from
the original marks you transfered with lacquer thinner. (How's that for
topical, eh?) No more than digital art. Remember, a computer is no more
than 1s and 0s. I DO get to control these as much as i control the flow of
ink from a pen tip.


Now let me add a lot of smiley faces      :-), :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-)
so folks don't take my posturing too seriously. I do love a good lively
discussion. However, I am not intending or pretending to be this world's
proponent of digital art.

Personally. I much prefer the scraper and burin and rubbing my inky hands
across a nice shiny-bright piece of copper.

I have never done a woodcut which is why I am here in the first place and
learning about issues from you folks.

Have a good Friday.

Jake

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

From: Jacob Roquet <roquet@coastalnet.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:14:47 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2579] Woodcut press 

Does anyone know of a studio, university or individual using a Wessler
printing press. These presses came out about 1880 and are a
Washington-style press. I have seen one at Mystic Seaport in Connecticut. I
am looking to talk with someone who has successfully built the tympan
components for this particular brand.

Has anyone used an etching press to pull a woodcut print? The issue I see
is creep and dealing with registration. Your experiences?

Thanks

Jake

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

From: "Ray Esposito" <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:15:28 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2580] Re: Baren Digest V6 #402 

Jean wrote:
>Well, with all these drastic, unscholarly, unsupported statemenets, I am
>sure someone will pop up and reply to my diatribe with one of their own.
>Back to looking at little sparks of originality and
>picking up colored pencils off the floor.

Jean

You cut us to the quick.  Obviously you are suggesting it is I, moi, Ray,
who will "pop up".

First, I do not consider what you wrote as a diatribe.  (Yes Jean, it is Ray
writing this.)  It was a reasoned statement.  I disagree with the one
paragraph but but it is not a diatribe.

I think your idea that it is all contrived by collectors is dead wrong.  It
may have been the publishers who originated the idea but collectors had
little if anything to do with it.  I doubt some collector went to an artist
and said " limit your edition and I will make more money buying your art but
you will be screwed royally".

Permit me to address this as a collector.  I am not as excited about limited
editions as I am the work itself.  I collect Dave Bull because I simply love
his works, not because there may be a limit on his prints.  His are
unlimited editions.  So what?  Perhaps what is needed is more guts on the
part of the artists themselves to say, "to hell with this editioning crap.
I am going to do unlimited editions".  Unfortunately, the number of artists
willing to do that is minimal and I doubt it would have an impact.

Personally, as an artist, I like doing small editions of 3-8.  Not because
it will increase the value but because I get bored with the printing process
and want to move on to a new print.  Accusing collectors of being a cabal
behind a master plan to increase the value of their collections is a wee bit
silly.

Let's not forget that we live in the real world and while we may want or
even try to change it, we have to live in it.  If the world wants editions
and you want to participate, you have to edition.  I will grant you this.
The power is with the collector.  If we can't sell our art, we starve.  If
your major collector tells you he/she will not collect editions over 25 and
you insist on doing unlimited editions, I admire your stand but you will
starve.  Wether we admit it or not, we like it or not, if you want to be a
successful artist and make a living at what you do, the name of the game is
marketing.  Most artists do not understand or know marketing but that is a
discussion for another time.

And folks, let's not all get excised about this.  It is only one persons
point of view and ALL others are equally valid.

Cheers

Ray

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

From: "Ray Esposito" <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:39:44 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2581] Re: Woodcut press

Jake wrote:
>Has anyone used an etching press to pull a woodcut print? The issue I see
>is creep and dealing with registration. Your experiences?

Jake

I use my etching press for everything.  Because of severe arthritis in my
hand, I am unable to use a baren or spoon well and elected to stop trying
because of the pain.

However, I must tell you I may not be the one to answer your question as
registration is not a major concern for me.  As an abstract artist,
registration is not as important as it is with most baren members.  (In
fact, some of my prints look better when misregistered.  :-)>)   But I do
woodcuts on the press and have had no problems doing it.  For those rare
times when I need registration, there is a problem with creep.  That is
solved to a great extent simply by being careful setting up the press.
Mostly I find that going very slow rather then running the plate through the
press rapidly, helps solves the problem.  Alas, even that however is not
good enough sometimes.

Cheers

Ray

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

From: Jacob Roquet <roquet@coastalnet.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:55:34 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2582] Re: Baren Digest V6 #402 

Jean Wrote:
>>Forget the obsession with canceling the print.  That is a much overrated
>>ritual that has nothing to do with art work, or artistic value.

Except for these digital prints I have never struck a plate. This was a
conceptual point with the struck image for the same reasoning as yours.
This was a digital pun.


>Personally, as an artist, I like doing small editions of 3-8.  Not because
>it will increase the value but because I get bored with the printing process

Amen, Amen. The largest edition I ever did was six etchings for a limited
edition book. 6 etchings, 320 copies each. 1920 prints -- hand-wiped and
hand-pulled. Gawd, I was printing these things in my sleep. I recognized
why they invented mechanical commercial presses.
>
>
>And folks, let's not all get excised about this.

Speaking of excised. I am joining the YMCA today. Too many calaries at
Christmas.

Jake


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

From: Elizabeth Atwood <elizuno@midcoast.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:33:50 -0400
Subject: [Baren 2583] All that! 

Way to go, Jean.......to be a survivor!

I have breathing problems from many years of printing in an unvented
basement........along with age and bad medical advice. Now with excellent
ventilation, none-the-less, I spread my time enjoying other art forms.
There are still so many areas of exploration with roller and baren that I
will probably not make the change to the watercolor printing of the
Japanese method....BUT I would advise any younger person to that direction.
AND, by the way, how many are there in the group who are using oil base
inks and rollers????

You guys should know that: Avon Silicone Glove will gently protect your
hands and any ink will wash off with soap and water. Find yourselves an
Avon Lady!

Welcome to Jake...and another voice in the appreciation of digital art. The
arguements presented are impressive and, hopefully, will broaden some
thinking on the subject.........ELIZ

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

From: "Atkinson, Andrew2" <Andrew2.Atkinson@uwe.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 16:31:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Baren 2584] Introduction 

Dear Baren,

its yet another lurker creeping out from the shadowy 
corners of the Baren readership to introduce himself!  My 
name is Andrew Atkinson, I live in Bristol (England) where 
I work for the art college's print department. I was born 
in the north of England (Bristol is in the south-west) and 
moved down five years ago to do my degree. I soon 
specialised in printmaking and work across all areas ending 
up with a balancing act between etching and relief.  

I work with oil based inks using old platen presses and 
letterpresses.  I have printed and produced an artist's 
book using rice based inks, but bar that do not have a lot 
of experience with this method.  I used an excellent and 
very detailed guide written by Rei Yuki and somebody else 
(whose name escapes me) published by Charles Tuttle. It 
contains a beautiful hand printed colour frontispiece 
which, presumably, is in every single copy! Even so, no 
matter how good a book is it can only get you so far and 
regardless of how loud you shout at it, how frustrated 
you get, it won't utter a word.  This is where Baren comes 
into its own.  

My own artistic practice wanders around artist's books in 
one form or another (traditional codex or concertina, in 
woodcuts, etchings or (mumbles) i-n-k-j-e-t. I also make 
prints of the flat, unbound, non-folding kind too and the 
occasional installation (still in print).  

As far as computer generated work goes (the hot topic of 
the moment) I can pitch myself with a foot in each camp.  I 
think there is good work being created using computers as a 
tool but only when it is the artist that is in control.  
Computers are too seductive they can do a lot, and 
unfortunately have a tendency to encourage artists to do 
lots of flash nonsense where, ordinarily, the restraints of 
a medium would insist on them being creative and not the 
computer creating dazzling virtuoso effects.  

Even somebody getting something wrong, fighting with a 
medium has an aethetic and an emotional charge.  While I'm 
on the subject, both Georg Baselitz and Roy Lictenstein had 
similar reasons to use woodcuts: because of the resistance 
of the medium. Lichtenstein wanted to fight and, 
perversely, make the wood produce industrial, sterile 
marks.  Whereas Baselitz simply wanted something to 
challange his will.  Computers simply don't resist enough, 
theres no feel to pulling a mouse across the table, and 
this is very accurately portrayed.  Scanners help 
immensely, they put the human back into the work.

I think part of the problem is the newness.  There are no 
digital artists recognised to the extent of Hiroshige 
or Durer (as I can't find the umlaut button it should be 
Duerer, but there you go).  When institutions and art 
history figure it out there will be digital Durer's but 
there isn't anyone obvious to recognise, yet.  As far as 
the institutions are concerned the recognise length of time 
for something to be considered archivally sound is one 
thousand years!  The best guess for digital prints gives a 
period of approximately eighty years for a Iris print on 
Arches stock. 

I do not want to detract from Baren's central purpose (too 
late) but an idea which might bridge the traditional with 
new could be the use of Flexography (or, photo-polymer 
plates). For those who don't know it is a light sensitive 
plastic that produces a relief printing surface. This, of 
course, makes it very useful for computer generated work. 
As well as this it is possible to cut it like wood.  When I 
say like wood I mean that it will cut although it has about 
as much life in it as a Dynesty re-run.  Another idea is, 
the so-called photo-brasives. These are film that are light 
sensitive and can be adhered to wood (in theory, I don't 
think they terribly reliable yet) and, if you sand blast 
them, they leave a relief surface, which can then be cut as 
per normal.

Right, I think I'm beginning to babble, so I'll sign off 
here, with my eyes glued for the next postings and, of 
course, with thanks to Dave Bull for putting this (and 
bringing us) togther and to you all for thoughts,

Andrew

P.S. If anybody could give me the name of a supplier of 
these Soy based wintergreen substitutes it would be much 
appreciated, they stink the workshop out for days! (Soy 
isn't used here, for ink or otherwise, yet).

Atkinson, Andrew2
Email: Andrew2.Atkinson@uwe.ac.uk
"University of the West of England"

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:24:31 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2585] Re: Digital Art 

Hey Ray,

Now I get it.
These guys, with there quick fix art are servicing the decorative art
market not the collector market.
That's Good. Like I said before go for it.

Graham

>(I presume "the flasher" refers to your flashing lighthouse beam?)

No see my post on the subject.

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

From: "Ray Esposito" <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:36:54 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2586] Re: Introduction 

>Dear Baren,
>its yet another lurker creeping out from the shadowy
>corners of the Baren readership to introduce himself!

Dear Andrew

Welcome aboard!  Loved your points of view and look forward to hearing much
more from you.

Are your prints on the web anywhere?

Cheers

Ray

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:37:35 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2587] Re: Digital Art 

Jake,

>:-) So a computer and mouse is not real stuff..

I find that it is quick fix art and it is not my way.
I love using the computer and all the good software but I only use if for
PR never my studio work.

Nothing anybody says here will change my mind.  I am not going to respond
to this subject until you are 65 and I am dead.   Then we will see.
Putting it to bed .....good night.

Graham

A day without sunshine is like, night.

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:43:47 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2588] Re: Baren Digest V6 #402 

Another nail-on-the-head post by our 2nd senior citizen.
(he did say a while back I was 1st)  (<:

Graham

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

From: "Brad A. Schwartz" <brads@iea.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Baren 2589] Re: non-toxic transfers 

On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, kim and paul wrote:

- ->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.

Try...
http://www.soygold.com
The stuff is more geared toward the offset printing industry but will work
for printmaking cleanup and such... they list it as a replacementfor
d'limonene, naptha, mineral spirits, and other petroleum based solvents. 
They sent me an info packet with a card to request a free sample... it
works great.

Brad A. Schwartz	

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

From: "Ray Esposito" <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:11:58 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2590] Digital art II

May I make a suggestion?

This digital art thing is getting a little out of control.  You kids will
never convince Graham and I and I doubt we will change your opinions.  There
are differences between Graham and I in that Graham is hard and fast locked
in and while I agree with him 99%,  I go along with some small aspects of
the digital position.  These are good points to discuss but I think it is
getting to the point where we are beating the subject to death.  It was a
great way to kick off the new year but.....

Still, as one who just loves all of this controversy and all of you know I
love a good fight, I think we need a period of quiet.

There are still good arguements on both sides and I for one want to hear
them but I want to suggest that NO ONE bring up the subject of digital art
until March 1, 1999.  On that date, we can begin to fight again.  We will
have all taken a deep breath and can get it on.  :-)>

Just a thought

Cheers

Ray

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:12:40 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2591] Re: Introduction 

Andrew,

Welcome aboard.....

Thanks for your input.   Hey guys there is another new toy to
investigate... photo-polymer plates.

>As well as this it is possible to cut it like wood.  When I
>say like wood I mean that it will cut although it has about
>as much life in it as a Dynesty re-run.

Humm computer art comes to mind.

>Computers are too seductive they can do a lot, and
>unfortunately have a tendency to encourage artists to do
>lots of flash nonsense where, ordinarily, the restraints of
>a medium would insist on them being creative and not the
>computer creating dazzling virtuoso effects.

God I have been trying to say just this for the last 6 months. Thank you
Andrew, thank you.

>the institutions are concerned the recognise length of time
>for something to be considered archivally sound is one
>thousand years!  The best guess for digital prints gives a
>period of approximately eighty years for a Iris print on
>Arches stock.

The lastest research and test here in the Americas, put the figure at 35 years.

 >Computers simply don't resist enough,
>theres no feel to pulling a mouse across the table, and
>this is very accurately portrayed.  Scanners help
>immensely, they put the human back into the work.

Except when they take photos and manipulate them to create "Original art"

Thanks,

Graham

Sorry I just broke my promise of,
I am not going to respond to this subject until you are 65 and I am dead.
Okay......Starting now.....

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

From: Wanda Robertson <robertson@canby.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 10:23:55 -0700
Subject: [Baren 2592] Re: Baren Digest V6 #402 

Yes, we're all glad to have you here, Jean! Your post raises some 
interesting questions.

Wanda

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

From: Dean Brink <interpoetics@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 10:42:15 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2593] Re: Digital art II 

And I suppose we should restrict discussion of what types of wood to use to two
postings per month; methods of drying, 3/mo; meaningless short messages 1/day.
Would you have us return to tradition? Okay, get out the flints and stone
scrapers; get out the .22 to mix the rabbit skin glue ourselves. Restrict
discussion of the art to a select family, preferably with similar genes, and
keep the secrets of the trade off the splendid "out of control" tableau here?

Actually, I find every extension of this computer revolution sharpening my
imagination. Remember the first "cut and paste" experience in a word processor?
Momentarily our imaginations are transformed; never again would writing be a
linearly bound experience. Ditto planning woodcuts and multiplatform printing
techniques (that have yet to be invented). It opens up new possibilities. While
it may be painful to those (young or old) set in their methods, the kiddies
(young or old) need to talk through the mind-bogglingly array of techniques made
possible by the new Adobe technology. Actually I've only dabbled in it. I'm
still caught up in the more conventional photocopier revolution.

dean b

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

End of Baren Digest V6 #404
***************************