[Baren]: The mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking. Baren Digest Saturday, 20 November 1999 Volume 09 : Number 789 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graham Scholes Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 16:14:21 -0800 Subject: [Baren 6715] Re: The wonders of the woodblock >Many of you have written recently about how 'we must educate the public' >on this 'reproductions' thing. Sorry to disagree with so many of you, >but I don't think that is anything to do with us. Leave 'em be - it's >no concern of ours. Sorry Dave but I cannot agree that "it's no concern of ours". I recognize that your are talking about images. Maybe on your side of the world it is different situation but here in North America the situation was serious. However a lot of the discussion is not about the beauty of the product or the image. There is lots of mechanically produced stuff out there that is beautiful and gives people pleasure and I have no argument with that, as I stated in responce to Barbara's posting. In order for them to sell their images they eventually bring in adjectives that compare it to Real prints. That is why we cannot sit back and be complacent. We are talking about the Scam. People that sell something for what it is not. I have stated this before and will make the point again for the new guys out there. It was started twenty years ago and it reached a feaverish pitch hurting many many people. They invested there money believing it would be valuable. 6 years ago some very pointed articles hit the national papers about the less than ethical marketing approach and the house of prints tumbled. Not only did the buyers get hurt when the reality of the scam became known but thousands of little and big art/print shops closed their doors. Several framing companies went belly up. The Scam scared a lot of people away from -buying art- of any kind. It is still prevalent today and there is very little evidence that the turn around is close at hand. I have not talked to many fellow artists here, Montreal and Toronto that have seen a return in confidence of the art buyers. I for one, cannot sit back and watch as the hustlers again start to misdirect the public on the newest reproduction print in the form of Giclee ... the inkjet prints. I have had numerous responses to my article on the web site. Most accuse me of hurting there business. I have responded by simply asking them to advise me if there is a mistruth or distortion of the facts and I will correct the article. Not one responce to my offer. It seems they are intent on trying to sell the inkjet printing for something that it is not. There is a local Art Gallery here that was very upset with the same article that appeared in a regional magazine that went to every household on the Peninsula (Sidney area) He called the publisher and told them that the article will cause severe damage to his business..... They asked him if the article was false or untrue in any way...... He hung up. Time for me to hang up. Graham ps >http://woodblock.com/temporary/gekko.jpg How many bokashi's (spelling?) do you suppose are involved, 4 or 6. ------------------------------ From: "Philip Smith" Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:16:58 -0800 Subject: [none] About 25 years ago there was a lady in San Francisco that bought a"print" from one of the big galleries there at Ghiridelli Square for, as I recall $900, and for some reason wanted to resell it, and no one would even consider her "print" of any value,...a news story of no consequence to anyone save for the lady who bought this reproduction,....the story bothered me enough that I went over to this gallery and bacame "interested" in a Norman Rockwell etching,.... there were many in this gallery, crudely done, about 24by36 inches at about $1800.00 each,...all were of N.R. Post covers,...I asked alot of questions,...sense I'm an illustrator I am somewhat familiar with Mr. Rockwell and his work,...if he did these, and in my humble opinion he DID NOT,...this gallery was a thief, selling goods that weren't what they advertised,....sure we can look the other way,...but what if one day, let's say in Oshcosh there's a gallery selling "originals" [that were in reality reproductions] By David or Barbara or Graham or John or Jack or Julio or who ever to who ever,.....what then?? I think most gallery people are honest and forthright,...but it's an iffy business,... and maybe it all comes down to terminology,.... a picture of a picture should not be considered a fine art print,....when a publishing house in Japan would print as many prints as they could from a block they would sell the block to a secondary publisher who would repair the block and sell additional prints from it,...but there was a notation to this effect,....if you're going to a party you might want to check your socks to see if they match,...you have to be abit concerned about all aspects of the business,.. Anyway,...blahblahblah,........Have a nice weekend, god bless all of you,.. Philip ------------------------------ From: David Bull Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:14:01 +0900 Subject: [Baren 6719] Re: The wonders of the woodblock > This scared a lot of people away from buy art of any kind. The same sort of thing has happened here in Japan, and there are frequent newspaper stories about 'busts' in the art world ... whether it is these phony 'limited editions' or 'legitimate' painting, etc. etc. The problem is based on the fact that many people believe these objects that we make can have a _financial_ value in addition to their simple value as beautiful objects. If you buy into this viewpoint, then you too are doing the same thing as the scam artists who flog the posters. If you (I don't mean 'you' as in 'Graham', I mean 'you' in general terms ...) If you sell your prints with _any_ kind of hint to people that there will be an appreciation in value, then you are not selling art, you are selling coloured stock certificates. Has the general public thus become wary of buying prints? Of course they have, justifiably so, just as they should be plenty wary when they buy stocks! The only way out of this is to reject utterly the concept that we are selling investments. "Do you like this picture? Yes? Wow, thank you ... I'm happy that you want to have one." I try as hard as I can to make it beautiful, and _that_, the beauty, is all that I want you to find in my prints ... Investment? Hell, no. I'm going to get the blocks out and make a whole lot more of them ... (one day when I have time, that is!) :-) Posters ... Giclees ... Wall Street stocks ... Bets on 'red' at Las Vegas ... they're all the same. Leave 'em be ... They're not part of our world ... Over and out ... Dave ------------------------------ From: David Bull Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:17:23 +0900 Subject: [Baren 6720] Re: Leave 'e-mail be. > How many bokashi's (spelling?) do you suppose are involved, 4 or 6. The spelling is fine. The guess is, I think, a bit high. Looking closely I can't see more than two - one up from the bottom, one down from the top. (Although there may also be a flat colour undercoat beneath everything ...) Dave ------------------------------ From: Graham Scholes Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:48:23 -0800 Subject: [Baren 6721] Re: The wonders of the woodblock Dave wrote.... >If you buy into this viewpoint, then you too are doing the same thing as >the scam artists who flog the posters. If you (I don't mean 'you' as in >'Graham', I mean 'you' in general terms ...) If you sell your prints >with _any_ kind of hint to people that there will be an appreciation in >value, then you are not selling art, you are selling coloured stock >certificates. Valid point indeed.... Maybe I should sell my stuff as investment stuff. During two lectures at the Victoria Art Gallery exhibition I was asked that question. When ever I am asked whether the work will become valuable I do not go beyond saying that as a living artist..... I don't have the answer. As a dead artist....only history will determine. I have reminded many people that they should buy it for its pleasure or beauty and that my work is a record and my interpretation of historical sites. 2 1/2 months show in the one of BC most prestigious galleries so far has resulted in 11 sales. Big Deal. I say to all those wanna be's..... do crafts or commerial art. Graham ------------------------------ From: Aqua4tis@aol.com Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:51:18 EST Subject: [Baren 6722] Re: The wonders of the woodblock << http://woodblock.com/temporary/gekko.jpg >> dave gradation is called bokashi?? it is truely wonderful and amazing in this print the conversation that we are all having here on the baren is very similar to one that is going on in another list im on in the other conversation we are discussing whether modernism is dead and also "what is art" one man brought up the recent turner awards and how there was not one painting in the winners the top winner was an unmade bed with dirty sheets empty bottles, full ashtray and used condoms on the night stand !!!!!!! i dont always agree with everything but i think these discussions are good for us we need to have our ideas challenged sometimes i also think you are correct dave our job is to do the best work that we can sort of like the old saying about not only talking the talk but also walking the walk anyway these are my 2 cents worth and graham im sorry about the lack of capitals some one stole all of them from my keyboard!!!!!!!!!!!! you guys are great! proud to be a baren member georga ------------------------------ From: David Bull Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:12:32 +0900 Subject: [Baren 6723] Re: 'originals' Philip wrote: > ... what if one > day, let's say in Oshkosh there's a gallery selling "originals" [that > were in reality reproductions] By David or Barbara or Graham or John > or Jack or Julio or who ever to who ever,.....what then?? This is an entirely different story, Philip. This is simply theft of copyright, and as such should be treated the same as any other theft, with legal action. > when a publishing house in Japan would print as many prints > as they could from a block they would sell the block to a secondary > publisher who would repair the block and sell additional prints from > it,...but there was a notation to this effect,.... I beg to differ here. In some cases, the new publisher would indeed 'plug' the blocks with his own identification, but in most such cases this would not happen, and there would be no 'notation' at all of the fact that there had been changes. Old blocks were just commodities to be used as needed, and printed from until they were worn out (and beyond, sometimes). One day after I'm gone, my blocks will presumably find their way out into the wide world, and it is quite possible that all kinds of editions will be made from them. I'm not worried about this. Future print historians will look at all these different prints, and it's interesting to guess what they might think ... "Look at this one, the colour is weak, there are brush strokes visible ... no, this can't be a Bull original, it must be a later reproduction. But look at this perfect one over here, now _this_ must be one of his!" ;-) Dave (the original) ------------------------------ From: Jean Eger Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:41:41 -0600 Subject: [Baren 6724] (no subject) Graham, I am writing on my son's ergonomic keyboard, so I am not responsible for what comes out. However, an original print created with computer as matrix, should be considered a print, if it is good enough to be fine art. One can make a limited edition, number it and sign it, just like the lower technologies. So, you have to admit that prints are produced by technology, beginning with woodcuts. The knives are technology. It is early printing technology, now obsolete for its original purpose. Same for etching and stone lithography--both were used for mass communications in their day. We are simply at the dawn of a new age of printing technology. It is absurd to say we cannot use this for fine art. Everything that communicates ideas is used for fine art. YOU, Graham, are merely talking about the MARKETPLACE for art. You want to limit the market for fine art, to less advanced technologies. That's a little bit different from considering the technology as a medium to express ideas. We have to let computer art in, if we want to have anyone under 50 in printmaking. Jean Eger ------------------------------ From: Jean Eger Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 22:04:34 -0600 Subject: [Baren 6726] (no subject) Welcome, Stella! How wonderful to have another SFSUer on board. I graduated with a BA in printmaking from there in....1994, I think. Then got an MA in art education and did my thesis on multicultural printmaking in the sf bay area. It is a wonderful department. I think they send people over there for therapy. I miss printing there. Please say hello to Barbara and Sylvia and Mario for me. I'll be back at sfsu in secondary education in spring, doing my student teaching. Maybe we can get together. Jean Eger http://users.lanminds.com/~jeaneger ------------------------------ From: Graham Scholes Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:17:14 -0800 Subject: [Baren 6727] "Fire of Desire" Jean Eger wrote.... >One can make a limited edition, number it and sign it, just like the lower technologies. Don't confuse Hi Tech with the historical disciplines of art. They are not lower technologies. Older but not lower. >YOU, Graham, are merely talking >about the MARKETPLACE for art. No Jean....that is only a small part of the equation. >We have to let computer art in, if we want to have anyone under 50 in >printmaking. Age has nothing to do with it. It is all about "fire of desire" and the achieving of skill plateaus. For me there is no skill plateau in the manipulation of computer images and certainly none in pressing the 'print' button for a hard copy. Not including "The ability to draw" in the following equation. Please ask yourself this question. What is greater.... "Is the skill level greater or knowledge required greater to achieve the following...... Stone Lithograph, Copper etching, Zinc Engraving, Woodblock Carved, plates and the skill level greater or knowledge required greater to achieve the following Hand Printing of all of the above." ..... compared to generating computer art. Searching within yourself you will find the "fire of desire" and do that which is going to take you to the higher skill plateaus of your choice. The operative word here is 'Higher' It may be computer art at present, but, as you reach those higher levels of skill you may want to move on to something more challanging. I am confident that in time the computer generated 'fluff' will go the way of the dodo bird. Only history will prove that statement right or wrong. I have expressed myself several times before on this subject and nobody has shown me .... including myself.... that computer art improves those skills and offers a new plateau. When you do draw something on the computer, I liken it to a type written letter as compared to a hand written note. No contest.... On that statement, I base my whole case. Graham ------------------------------ From: "Philip Smith" Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 22:19:49 -0800 Subject: [none] Well there's a book at Amazon called "How to Identify Prints: A complete Guide to Manual and Mechanical Processes from Woodcut to Ink Jet" by Bamber Gascoigne,....I think this work might give some inkling as to what everyone has been expounding about the last couple of days and maybe some insight as to what a "print" really is! Philip ------------------------------ End of Baren Digest V9 #789 ***************************