[Baren]: The mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking. Baren Digest Wednesday, 25 August 1999 Volume 08 : Number 674 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jeanne N. Chase" Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:18:28 -0400 Subject: [Baren 5359] Re: Looking for inspiration Philip Thanks for the ending of the "An artist without inspiration is like someone...............who rattles on without something to say". Jeanne ------------------------------ From: April Vollmer Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:20:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Baren 5360] Re: Baren Digest V8 #672 Dave, what have you started! My baren postings are pretty long these days! I'm with Maria in working so the cutting and creating the print are essential to developing an image. This may be an peculiarly American approach, individualism and all....Anyway, it means my prints will never be as beautifully finished as Dave's, but they have other virtues. (I hope!) And I definitely spend more time planning, lots more time, than cutting. I'm with Andrea there, I find it very relaxing to do the cutting. Graham, what do you mean the Vancouver colors are better than "ground" pigments? Aren't they ground? I've been using Art Guerra's pigments ground in water, water dispersions I think they are properly called. How is your stuff different? My only problem is that sometimes the heavier ones settle. The Akua color stays in suspension better, though the binder may be unnecessary. April Vollmer ------------------------------ From: Cucamongie@aol.com Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:45:40 EDT Subject: [Baren 5361] Re: carving, designing, printmaking I hate to contradict our leader, but even though what he says might be true from a strictly technical standpoint -- I think part of the magic that happens in artmaking is when things are not "perfect," and "accidents" happen, and adjustments are made, etc. Also, as Barbara expressed, for me a lot of the pleasure of artmaking is in the process, and if the result is not exactly as I planned, so what, really - I can try again or maybe what I ended up with is actually more interesting than what I had first envisioned. At any rate, I think we're all constantly striving to get better at the technical end of it, but good technique doesn't necessarily mean good art. Personally, for the most part I'm not so interested in perfect little lines, I'm more interested in capturing a looser type of expression. I'm probably rambling, but these are some thoughts that Dave's post provoked... << David Bull wrote: > I can't believe that it is > possible to be all three and still be as _good_. Maybe some of you will > be angry at this. Most of you who read this are doing designing, > carving and printing. But (excuse me) your prints are not _carved_ as > well as a professional carver - they are not _printed_ as well as a > professional printer. Joe mentioned "Pixlar" but I believe he meant "Pixar" - the company that does 3-d animation that put out "Toy Story" and "Bug's Life" - as for 3-d animation, my sweetheart Jeffrey is creating some incredible-looking characters in 3-d computer animation, which takes him a long time as he says it's hard to get a more funky look w/computer, but he has ended up with some fantastic stuff that is fine art as far as I'm concerned! - as for using computer for design, why not? it's like having another tool, if it works for you, why not use it? best to all, Sarah ------------------------------ From: "Jeanne N. Chase" Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:12:36 -0400 Subject: [Baren 5362] Process Have been reading with mixed emotions all the messages re; "process'. It seems you are making the "process" too much like a cookie cutter. I agree with Maria, the exitement the unexpected should be more important than the "process". I do not think that Van Gogh had any idea about the process of his "Sunflowers". The idea or inspiration comes first. Then you have to put it down on your paper or canvas, whether it is "processed" or not. Example; I was inspired, if you will, by an old recording of Santana, the 70's rock group. The drum solo was fantastic, I played it for about 5 hours straight. I carefully "processed' a drummer, drumming, trying to get the feel of the music. The lines were correct, it looked like a drummer, I transferred it to my wood block and started carving. My knife ran away from me, my colors changed and I produced nothing at all like the original "processed" piece. (the music was playing still) The title is called "Red Hot" and it will be up on my web page in a couple of weeks. My emotion took over the process and I believe I produced a good piece of art work. Perhaps we are talking semantics here. If I had stuck to the original drawing, the emotion would have been missing all together. I guess we all just work differently. Some of us need to be freer than others. Maybe discipline vs freedom? And who is really to say which is right? I just had to jump in here with my 10 cents!!!!! Jeanne ------------------------------ From: Barbara Mason Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 08:29:20 -0700 Subject: [Baren 5363] design, cut, print Dave, I was working in my studio like a little beaver at 4:30 this AM (I foolishly signed up for a tentfair and have no work to sell, hence the early AM burst of energy) and had a lot of time to think about your post that the artist cannot be a designer, carver and printer. You certainly have gotten things stirred up for all of us, our brain cells have recharged with such a topic. You are right about collaboration being the oldest form of printmaking, but I take exception that an artist cannot also be a good printer. I haven't done woodblocks long enough to really comment on them, but I know in other areas, etching, litho, relief, etc. there are some fantastic printers that also do the design and make the plates. Your theory that there are only so many hours in a day and one cannot master everything is probably true, but if you give up doing the entire process, you also give up control of the work to some extent. I have worked with some wonderful master-printers, trained at Tamarind, and it is true they probably know more about making plates and printing than I do. However the collaboration process is so hard, trying to make someone else understand what you want as an end result when you are not sure yourself. I am like a lot of the American printers, I do make a lot of it up as I go along. So I spent an incredible amount of money and have a lot of prints that I am not thrilled with. They are OK, but they aren't great. If I had unlimited money, I suppose I could eventually get the printer to understand what I am after but it seems easier and cheaper to do it myself and I do like the results better. The carving seems as important to me as making the design and printing and I am not willing to give up control in any area after my experiences. So I guess I will not be making Mona Lisas, but I think I will be liking my own work a lot more if I do it all. You say your design is poor, but it is like anything, it is as good as the energy you put into it. For example, I have a friend that has a nursery and I was lamenting that I cannot grow ferns, that they ALWAYS die. She said I had no interest in growing ferns and that was why they died. I was shocked because I love ferns. But she said if I really loved them I would take proper care of them and they wouldn't die. I had to agree. So if you really were interested in doing designs, you would get good at it because you would give the designs the time it takes for them to develop and get good. Your interest lies in carving and printing so you have developed that talent and it is amazing to us beginning carvers and we one day aspire to be able to do as well. As we say, an artist without inspiration is like someone who keeps talking with nothing to say. Well, this is a lot to say, but maybe it is nothing! Ha! Serves me right for being up working when I should be sleeping. Barbara ------------------------------ From: Graham Scholes Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:20:33 -0800 Subject: [Baren 5364] Re: Baren Digest V8 #672 >Graham, what do you mean the Vancouver colors are better than "ground" >pigments? I should have said powder pigments. Sorry. Graham PS It sound like you got something that works, so no need to change. ------------------------------ From: John Ryrie Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 05:27:45 +1000 Subject: [Baren 5365] Re: Collaboration ... I think I should say something regarding this collaboration subject. At the moment I am doing Litho next year I will be working with a master printer but it is important for me to get a complete understanding of the processes involved, even the ones that will be done for me in the future. In the cases in western art where this type of collaboration has been used (I am thinking of The Renaissance up to the 18th century) There have been cases where the artist has not designed a woodcut so much as provided an ink drawing to be reproduced. In the case of Japanese prints they are less interesting when they are mealy trying to reproduce a water colour. To use the violin player again as an example you don't make great music by an idea alone the ability to compose comes from a mastery of the interment which lets the inspiration to come through. It would not be possible for Gaugain, Munch, Munakata or numerous others to working any other way than alone. John Ryrie ------------------------------ From: Brian Lockyear Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 12:58:21 -0700 Subject: [Baren 5367] Re: Collaboration (To Cut or Not to Cut)... Hello all! Well, by way of introducing myself to the forum I'll jump right into the middle of a discussion on a very interesting subject :-) Here's my take on are the pros and cons of artists doing the design, carving and printing of woodblocks. First, our modern economics won't support a profession of highly trained technical experts specialized in carving cherry woodblocks for prints. On the other hand, there are still professional master printers for other fine printmaking technologies less accessible to the amature and where there is enough money to support them. Look at Crown Point Press or Pace Editions. Look at Frankenthaler's latest woodblocks. But to the general artist, not having master carvers and printers available is not a choice, its a fact. Given that the economics of woodblocks are so limited we can't afford carvers and printers, and that one cannot be a professionally skilled "master" of all three, is it still worthwhile to make woodblock prints?? Obviously all of us here would answer with a resounding "YES"! But why?? Because the quality and character of the prints created are unique to the medium and worthy of exploration by modern artists. This gives us a different goal than when woodblocks were the only means of mass producing art. Then it was to make the print look like a painting or drawing which the artist wanted to be reproduced for sale. Design artists must have intimate knowledge of carving and printing because they provide the character of the medium that makes woodblock prints worthwhile. Artists take that knowledge back into the design of each successive print to enhance them. Today, it is to the artist's credit that he or she takes on the additional tasks of carving and printing inorder to pursue the medium. It also means that woodblock prints today are not the same artform they were 200 years ago, it is a new, living artform that stands on its own. Cheers- - Brian - ------------------------------ From: Wanda Robertson Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 13:35:12 -0700 Subject: [Baren 5368] Re: images and more Oooh, I just have to jump back in here on this subject! When I first said that thing about "dumbing down" the image to make it easier to cut - - I was in NO WAY implying that *anyone* on this forum or any other place actually did that! I really enjoy the simpler prints (not reproductions) and hope that someday I can say as much as beautifully and simply as some of the people in the past and on Baren can do with so few lines & embellishments! Excellent discussion, I really enjoy hearing everyones's ideas on these subjects. Thank you Brad, for the pointers on buying prints on e-bay! I buy computer stuff & camera stuff, but am a little leery of buying art! Of course, the ones I would like to have are about $400, and not much question of their authenticity! But sometimes people are selling ones that are framed and you really can't tell if they are real prints or just a fancy framed repro. Wanda ------------------------------ From: Jack Reisland Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 10:36:14 +0000 Subject: [Baren 5369] Re: design, cut, print Barbara Mason wrote: > I haven't done woodblocks long enough to really comment on them, but I > know in other areas, etching, litho, relief, etc. there are some > fantastic printers that also do the design and make the plates. and John Ryrie wrote: > It would not be possible for Gaugain, Munch, Munakata or numerous others > to working any other way than alone. If I may answer for Dave, I believe he was speaking of Japanese woodblock printing, not all forms of printing, and not certainly not art in general. Is that so, Dave? These arguments sound very familiar, they echo those that I have read at the very beginning of the Shin Hanga and Sosaku Hanga split. Jack ------------------------------ From: Maria Arango Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 15:40:54 -0700 Subject: [Baren 5372] vive la difference! In reading some of the posts of all of the Bareneers, I found refreshing that we agree and that we disagree. Yes, the technical abilities of the members differ, and so do our purposes and our intent and, thank goodness, our imagery. I can think of nothing so unappealing as to hand my designs to a master carver and have someone else do the carving and printing; shudder at the thought! Will I ever be as good a carver and printer as you or the other more experienced members of the group? Maybe not, maybe we're not trying to do the same things. Wouldn't this be a Boring Baren if we all were trying to do the same thing... Dave was kind enough to re-post my Exchange Print for those who did not receive the real thing. May a million thank yous befall him. Health to all, Maria ------------------------------ From: David Bull Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:09:44 +0900 Subject: [Baren 5373] Re: design, cut, print Barbara wrote: > Dave, > You say your design is poor, but it is like anything, it is as good as > the energy you put into it. This is 100% on target. Guilty as charged! I've never sketched, never drawn from life, never felt the need to try and put 'pictures' down on paper ... So of _course_ when it comes to design, I'm a turkey. But I really wanted to make beautiful woodblock prints like the ones I had seen. Foolish I guess, but then discovering the Japanese collaborative printmaking tradition, and realizing that I _could_ make prints without being an 'artist', was the best thing that ever happened to me. *** This just in from Gosho-san: He sez that the best kind of shark for our use is the one known as 'monkfish' or 'angel shark'. He also added that the 'recent' stuff is 'not so good' ... (Now where have I heard that before ...) *** New member Brian made an interesting posting (Welcome, Brian), and it reminds me about something I've meant to mention for some time. Looking over the list of participants in Exchange #3 (now cutting) and Exchange #4 (nearing start-up) I see a number of names that I don't recognize. People have joined [Baren] and signed up to the Exchange, but haven't 'come out' and introduced themselves to the rest of us. Please do so. The exchanges are intended to be an exchange of prints among members of a _group_, people with something to say to each other, and who feel they have something in common. The exchange folios are not just a random batch of 30 woodblock prints. I'm not demanding that you spend hours a day at your keyboard with [Baren], but please give the other members the courtesy of letting us know who you are ... *** Jack wrote: > If I may answer for Dave, I believe he was speaking of Japanese woodblock > printing, not all forms of printing, and not certainly not art in general. > Is that so, Dave? Well ... although it's true that my only knowledge is in this field of traditional Japanese work, the idea that one person can't be a master of 'everything' is, I think, a universal point. But in the modern Western world, the idea of individualism is _so_ strongly burned-in to the culture, the concept of accepting collaborative input is seen to be anathema. Collaborative work like that which I have been propounding is only possible when the various members of the collaboration _share_ a number of things - a common cultural background, a common outlook on things in general (and the art in particular), and a common 'vision'. This all goes against the Western cult of individuality. So of course I recognize that collaborative work isn't the 'way' for most of the people reading my words. But that doesn't erase my view, which was born out of the experience of seeing so many astonishingly high-quality prints, that the ultimate heights of the woodblock experience lie in collaboration - from each person on the team comes his _total_ skill, combining to produce a result not attainable by one man alone! (Hear Hear!) *** Maria wrote: > Dave was kind enough to re-post my Exchange Print for those who did not > receive the real thing. Maria is being a lady here. The _real_ story is that I screwed up the scan of her print from Exchange #2. That scan has now been replaced, so please head over to http://woodblock.com/forum/exchange_2/exchange_frame.html and see what her print _really_ looks like! Dave ------------------------------ From: Jack Reisland Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:52:20 +0000 Subject: [Baren 5374] Re: design, cut, print=20 David Bull wrote: > He sez that the best kind of shark for our use is the one known as > 'monkfish' or 'angel shark'. Thanks Dave (and Gosho-san) for this information. Here in the west, the 'monkfish' and the 'angel shark' are two quite different creatures, even though they look very similar. The 'monkfish' is Lophius piscatoris with sub species of litulan and americanus, and can be seen at http://www.bdssr.com/images/fish/monkfish.htm. The 'angel shark' is Squatina squatina, and can be seen at http://ds.dial.pipex.com/sharktrust/angel.shtml. My guess is that we are looking for the shark variety, which is actually more like a ray than the sharks we have been getting. I wondered about this early on because of my experience using same', the ray skin used in the wrapping of Japanese sword handles, with it's very prominent scale patterns. If I remember correctly, the "angel shark" looks very much like the "ray" that same' comes from. At any rate, Graham and I have been getting the wrong fish altogether. Jack ------------------------------ From: "Gregory D. Valentine" Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 18:38:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [none] One line of my thinking goes: a medium works best when it remains true to its fundamental nature. A sculpture of rock is better than a sculpture of molded plastic made to look like rock. So a woodblock print works best when it reflects its true nature, not when it seeks to be something else. I think of woodblocks as masses; lines appear more as areas cut away (white line). If one technically could produce a Rembrant etching via woodblock, it would be a technical tour-de-force, but (I think) it would be so difficult, so contrary to the nature of a woodblock, and therefore so far removed from the hand of the artist, as to be inappropriate. A Rembrant etching should be etched. A woodblock should be simple, expressively cut, in a few colors, and printed by the artist, and not necessarily well-printed, to maintain the integrity of the idea, the medium, and its expression. A second line of thought is, an artist should seek to push the boundries of his medium. I have been thinking about ways to make my woodblocks have more of the qualities I appreciate in oil paintings. The qualities in expressionist and sosaku hanga prints I admire are the things furthest from my own repetoire. The Renaissance (Durer, et al), Ukiyo-e, and Shin Hanga, produced very fine prints that run contrary to what Im saying a print should be. Perhaps the true essence of woodblock lies in the nature of the color in the paper? Or are there greater things than are dreamt of in my philosophy. Perhaps I should avoid the verbage, and just remember the verbs: CUT! PRINT! Greg Valentine ------------------------------ End of Baren Digest V8 #674 ***************************