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

Baren Digest              Sunday, 21 November 1999      Volume 09 : Number 790

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

From: John and Jan Telfer <jtelfer@iinet.net.au>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 99 23:02:04 -0000
Subject: [Baren 6730] Re: Baren Digest V9 #788 

Wanda, Brad, Graham, Gary, Barbara, April and many others contributing to 
the Computer debate.

Agreed...Digital manipulation in traditional Printmaking is a valuable 
tool for designing, and manipulating images, selecting colour variations 
and using creative masks to alter pictorial images BEFORE they are 
reproduced in "long hand"....Our art schools are showing students how to 
cut individual coloured "stencils" from their computer image to the 
printer TO TRANSFER THEM onto screens or multicoloured relief printing 
blocks  (it is like digital drawing)...  It is a modern means of making 
printed images. They are still "getting their hands dirty", so to speak. 
Probably just like woodblocks, lithographs, etchings, etc were back in 
their original days when compared to drawing and redrawing...putting the 
monks out of business!  

The Printmakers Association of Western Australia have included Digital 
Manipulation as a separate catagory, one all to itself, whether Unique 
State or Editional Prints, in their own separate section in our annual 
printmaking exhibition.  We found the digital "prints" were taking over 
from the Traditional Printmaking in winning prizes, so now we have 
confined them to their own little corner!  Fremantle Print Award still 
gives the majority of their awards to digital prints and they are loosing 
entries from the traditional printmakers in protest.
We also have handouts, free, on "What is a Print?" This includes a small 
explanation on relief, etching, etc..trying to educate our public, but 
the price on gallery pieces whether a traditional handmade print or 
commercial copy WE CAN ONLY TRY TO EDUCATE PEOPLE.  
I have had postcards made of some of my woodblocks (in fact Dave has a 
copy of them) and on the back I have the original sizes printed, but I am 
still having to explain that they are copies, sometimes till I am blue in 
the face!!

When I visited Japan last year one gallery also separated their 
catagories into 1.traditional printmaking, 2. digital and 3. photography. 
 It works well like that and no one gets offended! 
Sales can benefit all areas...some of the digital prints are quite 
fantastic in their own right....we take it one step further and carve and 
print that image.

Keep carving and printing Bareners, 
Jan

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

From: "Jeanne Norman Chase" <studiojnc@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:00:15 -0500
Subject: [Baren 6731] Computer Art 

I just had to jump in here. After reading umpteen e mails on Computer Art.
When I started teaching at Ringling School of Art in 1978 we had a very
active Fine Art dept.
 Drawing was stressed, everyone had to take a Drawing class for 3 years.
Then the computer age arrived in full force.
 They started a Computer class and it grew in leaps and bounds.

When I left Ringling in 1994, there were more Computer art students than
Fine Arts.
 In my Drawing class the last year I had ONE fine arts student.
 The computer arts students could not understand why they had to be
subjected to a drawing class, especially Life Drawing.
One student told me that wilth his Lucy (projector), he could draw better
and faster so the drawing class was a waste of time.
 That was the usual attitude of most students.

 I have a hard time putting computer art into the same category as Fine Art.
I think it has its place.
 It is a Commercial Art and Commercial Art has always had a DIFFERENT place
and should not be called Fine Art.

 I think computer graphics is neat and like to be amused and amazed by it
but it still cannot qualify (in my mind) as Fine Art.

I am with you all the way, Graham.

As Ingres said "Drawing is the integrity of art."

Jeanne N.   My 10 cents worth!

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

From: Gary Luedtke <GLuedtke@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:58:02 -0500
Subject: [Baren 6732] "Fire of Desire"

Graham wrote:
>For me there is no skill plateau in the manipulation of computer images...

That's because you don't recognize the challenge.    You are reversing
difficulties for the sake of furthering your argument.    Example.   Take
any one of your nude drawings, that you drew with charcoal or pencil, and
try to draw the same thing on the computer.   Are you trying to tell me
that this is _easier_?  I've got news for you, it's ten times more
difficult.   So how is using a computer taking the easier way out?  
Actually, right now it may even be impossible to do that drawing.   But
let's say you wanted a drawing on the computer, you can still draw it, and
scan it in, and then start moving beyond the scope of drawing and into
computer art.   How is that less skill?   Less challenging?

>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.

Just the opposite, Graham.   If you want to move on to higher and more
challenging skills, try going from drawing to the computer.   There's a
challenge!    I have drawn and painted, those come more easily to me.  
Creating art on a computer is much more challenging.   It's a different
medium, but has more scope to work with.   And you do have to learn that
scope.   It's not done for you by just pushing a button.

>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 think history is already proving that statement  wrong.    Is the
worldwide use of computers shrinking or growing?   Is the number of
woodblock printers, growing or shrinking?   Which art medium then do you
think will go the way of the dodo bird?

>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.

And that is just as valid a statement for computer artists as for any other
kind.   People who do woodblock prints are not the only artists with "fire
of desire".

>When you do draw something on the computer, I liken it to a type written
>letter as compared to a hand written note.

You are again confusing two separate media.    Drawing is drawing.   You
cannot draw well, yet, on a computer, at least I can't.    But neither can
you pick up a pencil and do a piece of computer art.   So let's not confuse
the issue.


One further thought.    Graham, and probably many others, see the
manufacturing of a print as the greatest contribution to its value.   
Others may feel that the image itself is what has value, not the
manufacturing process.   Two schools of thought.     But look at the
surviving woodblock prints that have attained great value.   Is this
because of the manufacturing process, or the image?   Woodblock printing
was done by craftsmen who undoubtedly did not say to themselves when they
sat down to work on  a sunny Edo morning,

 "Gee, this design is not so hot, so I'm going to use inferior printing
methods on this one, as well as cheap paper."

Or,,,
"Wow, this design is spectacular, I'm going to do the very best I can on
this one."

I suspect any and all prints were probably handled very similarly in the
manufacturing process, unless a special treatment was called for by the
publisher for some reason, as in doing surimono.   But the point is that
without the design making it attractive, the print goes the way of the
"dodo bird" now matter how well it might have been made.    Why, after all,
are some prints worth more than others, even though the printing quality
may be equivalent, or even inferior?

A thousand prints were done, but folks like Dave and Graham are only ones
in millions to sift through and see value in the manufacturing process.  
This is lamentable, but true.   Yet those millions determine the historical
value of the print, and determine which goes the way of the dodo.  Not
true?
Sooner or later they pass through their hands, and if no value is
perceived, it's trash.   

So, to recap.   Any media offers its own challenges, and the "fire of
desire" in the artist determines how far they will go in mastering those
challenges and elevating that media to the level of producing great art.

(Well, Dave.   That resolve didn't last long, did it?)

Gary

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

From: Gary Luedtke <GLuedtke@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:12:47 -0500
Subject: [Baren 6733] Computer Art 

Jeanne wrote,
>As Ingres said "Drawing is the integrity of art."

Jeanne,  drawing was the integrity of _Ingres'_ art.

Obviously Ingres was not an Impressionist.

There are many media and styles and components to art.   Infinite almost.  
It seems human nature to compare and judge, and denigrate some while
praising others, validating some while invalidating others.    In the end
it's personal taste, isn't it?   It's what communicates to you something
above the ordinary.   Everyone's taste is different.    Let's enjoy what we
enjoy, and be happy that it's there to give us enjoyment, whatever it is. 
And if we, as artists, can give that enjoyment to others, so much the
better.    Whatever media we chose to challenge ourselves with is our own
challenge to produce something of enjoyment to others.   

Gary

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

From: Bella1yopp@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:16:56 EST
Subject: [Baren 6734] Re: Baren Digest V9 #787 

Welcome Stella.  I hope you checked out the encyclopedia 
http://www.woodblock.com/encyclopedia/index.html
There is an amazing amount of information there about all sorts of woodblock 
related items.  
I've been so busy these past couple of days that when I took some time this 
morning to check my email... WOW!!  What a fiery discussion!   I feel like I 
am too tainted to become part of the technology vs. handmade fight.  Since I 
frame lots of "reproductions" everyday, I see their value to the general 
public.  Their value?  They are accessible to the general public ... 
affordable, easy to find, and put a snappy frame and nice double mat oh, and 
don't forget the UV conservation clear to make sure this $40 print doesn't 
fade.. and well golly you's gotch yourself a fine piece of art!  And lately 
I've been seeing local artists (painters) bringing in canvas transfers.  
Imagine that!  Your newly bought watercolor on paper could now be in every 
house on your block... but while you paid $400, they paid $650 because 
although a reproduction its now on canvas...
Well, I must finish reading my wonderful email.
Oh, and I know I am a little early (its out of excitement because my little 
brother is coming home from college for the holiday) Happy Thanksgiving to 
those that celebrate it.
- -Amanda Yopp

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

From: Ruth Leaf <leafr@ecom.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 09:34:20 -0700
Subject: [Baren 6735] Re: Baren Digest V9 #788 

Graham,  What makes you think that drawing on the computer is not
drawing.  I love drawing with a brush and a pencil and any other tool
that comes my way which  includes a mouse.  I have sold prints done on
the computer but I always explain what they are and of course they are
very inexpensive and not editioned.  It puts me in mind of Leonard
Baskins wood engravings.  They are not editioned and I asked him why.
His reply was that a woodengraving can produce a multitude of prints and
as long as people wanted them he would print them and charge much less
than a limited edition print. I agree with you only in that the artist
must apprise the public about what he or she is selling.  I hope this
discussion helps the artist and the public to understand what's what.
Ruth
- --
http://www.ruthleaf.com

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@home.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:35:05 -0800
Subject: [Baren 6736] Re: "Fire of Desire" 

Gary wrote....

>Just the opposite, Graham.   If you want to move on to higher and more
>challenging skills, try going from drawing to the computer.   There's a
>challenge!    I have drawn and painted, those come more easily to me.
>Creating art on a computer is much more challenging.   It's a different
>medium, but has more scope to work with.   And you do have to learn that
>scope.   It's not done for you by just pushing a button.

I have done it and there is no desire or challenge compared to the real thing.
It does not have more scope.  It is quick 'fix art' and does not require
the thought process of making marks on paper which are not easily changed.
With a computer you can Save As and keep changing it through trial and
error until the cows come home.    Moooooooo, then pick one you think is
the best.
Use the wrong colour? ......zap change it. A thinner line...... zap
Maybe rather than call it fluff art it should be called "Zap Art"  Hey I
like that.....

>I think history is already proving that statement  wrong.

But we are in the present so how can you say that.

>worldwide use of computers shrinking or growing?   Is the number of
>woodblock printers, growing or shrinking?

What goes around comes around. I see a big resurgence in Woodblock printmaking
There certainly is a growth of printmaking in general. Again the future
will tell.

>And that is just as valid a statement for computer artists as for any other
>kind.   People who do woodblock prints are not the only artists with "fire
>of desire".

I did not limit the "fire of desire" to one field or medium

>You are again confusing two separate media.    Drawing is drawing.   You
>cannot draw well, yet, on a computer, at least I can't.    But neither can
>you pick up a pencil and do a piece of computer art.   So let's not confuse
>the issue.

No confussion for me.   You missed it totally.
I am talking about the emotional responce of reading a hand written
note..... I'm referring to the emotion of beautiful handmade prints.

Dave phrased it nicely.

>Do you believe that woodblocks prints are more beautiful ... more 'real'
>than those posters?  If so, then carve and print and talk and display
>and promote _woodblock prints_!  Don't worry about that other stuff.
>Ignore it. People will see what you are doing ... and some of them will
>see the light.

The rest of what you wrote is another subject and this blah blah blah has
gone on long enough.

I hope you see the light.......Have a better day.

Graham

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

From: Jean Eger <jeaneger@lanminds.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:00:07 -0600
Subject: [Baren 6737] (no subject) 

The problem with computer art is not the reproducations,
it is the use of other people's imges in the production of
computer collages.  Try making a computer collage with all
your own images, without scanning something from a
magazine, without using clip art, without stealing an
image from someone else's web site.  There are many people
out there who have not had their consciousness raised to
that level, or are simply not aware that copyright laws
apply to computer collages.  Or do they?  These ideas are
constnatly  being challenged, first by Warhol with the
Campbell's soup cans and now with appropriation artists.

I for one really get a kick out of using a Wacom pad and
drawing on the screen.  I am glad Ruth Leaf has some
adventurous spirit also.

My son also has an adventuirous spirit, that is why he
uses this confounded ergonomic keybpad.

I don't know why I suggested you look at that video web
site. http://www.thebitscreen.com It gave me the "ah ha"
feeling.

Maygbe stills from the web site could be printed out as
individual prints...we don't yet have any icons that
approach the reverence we feel for Rembrandt or Gauguin or
Hiroshige.  I guess this is getting a little far afield
from woodblock printmaking.  I don't fault you on your
viewes about drawing, Graham. Jean Eger

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

From: "Bea Gold" <bnj50@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 11:12:51 -0800
Subject: [Baren 6738] age? 

Hey Jean - I agree with you except - why 50 - (your age?) experimentation
with new methods is available to anyone - 60 - 70- 80- 90  ........
We are back to selling (commerce) vs making art with whatever tools we find
interesting to use.  Bea

 "We have to let computer art in, if we want to have anyone under 50 in
printmaking."

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

From: Cucamongie@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 16:39:18 EST
Subject: [Baren 6740] openings, etc 

hi folks, I've been crazy busy, just finished my exchange print for #4, yay!
Here are a couple of shows I have stuff up in, for those in these respective 
areas:
Charlevoix Art Gallery
4819 Central Ave. NE
Albuquerque, NM
Maria & Andrea also have stuff up in this show, the opening was yesterday, 
it's up til Dec. 13, phone # there is 505=266-1046

Bow Wow! It's a dog's life
Reception is Tomorrow, Nov. 21, 3-5 pm
at Bedford Gallery-Dean Lesher Regional Center for the Arts
1601 Civic Drive
Walnut Creek, CA
Phone: 925-295-1417,

Best to all, hopefully I'll be able to start catching up on all these recent 
posts!
Sarah

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

From: Vollmer/Yamaguchi <jy6@columbia.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 18:53:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Baren 6742] French slang 

I have to side with Dave on the computer prints, it's just not interesting
to speculate about what other people are doing with their computers that
they shouldn't be doing! I'm sure there is a lot of junk out there...but do
I have time to think about it? Too busy making the good stuff! I do try to
explain the idea of multiples as original art to people when I teach. It is
a different concept from what people are used to thinking of with painting.

I have been working on some digital images, and have done some research on
different digital printing technologies. Several experienced digital
printers have explained to me that 'giclee' is a misnomer, more accuretely
these prints should be called 'Iris' prints, which is the name of the
machine they are printed on.  The word giclee is some sort of French slang
for squirt, having a sexual connotation! (The Iris printer sprays color on
the paper similar to the way an ink jet does.) Iris print technology is
superior in clarity and depth of color as well as longer lasting than an
Epson ink jet. There are other printers with different levels of scale,
quality and longevity, the Iris seems to be the most highly considered at
the moment.

It has been an interesting project, working with digital master printers as
I continue with my woodblocks. I doubt that digital print technology will
be able to compare with the tactile surface of a woodcut, but does have its
possibililties. I will be in a show of digital prints this February at
Silicon Gallery in Brooklyn. Hey, guys, it's just different!

So glad Barbara has found a good home for the orphaned #3 portfolio set!
what do you think of setting aside an extra set from each portfolio for
opportunities like that?

April Vollmer

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

From: Josephine Severn <severn@acay.com.au>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 23:39:55 +1100
Subject: [Baren 6743] Marco's Site 

Hi everyone
I want to appologize for misspelling your name Marco. Wanda mailed me
that my browser might the problem for not accessing the whole site. I
have re-checked and it is giving me a Java script error about your file
navigation.htm, so I think that's you not me? Can someone help here? I
have just downloaded another browser and will try that in the next few
days.

While I am apologising, sorry for not remembering to cut and paste,
Dave. My only excuse is that sometimes I am on some hefty medication and
get a bit vague, clumsy and forgetful. I blew up the stove top the other
day while I was merrily surfing away...

About all the discussion about types of prints. I think you all have
some good points. There seems to be several streams of discussion
though. For the record, I agree about the problems with reproduction
prints of paintings undermining the original print market. I would like
to see some sort of international consensus on terminology with
penalties for mis-describing prints. I _hate_ it when someone's poster
print of their painting is described as an original print. I also agree
that it is our responsibility as printmakers to keep educating the
public about what we do and why we do it.

On the other hand, I agree that it is perfectly acceptable for an artist
to use the computer as a tool to produce a work of art or limited
edition, Ive done it myself. And before you say anything Graham I
understand what you say about the artist's 'handwriting', I think that
the style signature and the mark making issues are still there in a
computer generated print, if the artist is good that is. But that
applies to all mediums. 

This is true whether the entire process is done on the computer or only
part of it, as when the printmaker makes the print on the press, but
somewhere in the production of that print, a computer was used. The two
solarplate prints on my site were both made with the assistance of the
computer, that's how I got the black tones, but they were both printed
intaglio on a press too.

So my main point here is not to confuse these two issues, ie of
reproduction prints or the computer as tool.

Thats my two cents worth.

On another note, continuing my project to get printmaker's work on the
net, I am about to put up a series of pages on how to build your own
website. If there is someone there who hasnt got one and would like to
make one, would you mail me off list and indicate if you would like to
help test my information pages? Or if someone knows of  any good sites
that I can link to on this topic, or who provide free websites, please
mail me (off list) to advise.

yours in printmaking
Josephine

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

From: Maria Arango <Maria@mariarango.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:51:11 -0800
Subject: [Baren 6744] real prints 

Back from travels to find all this serious talk in Baren...phttteeewy.
I can vouch for the book that Phillip mentioned (Identifying Prints). It
has great information on the technical aspect of prints. Maybe I should
say the "physiology" of prints, how the paper is affected by what type
of process, how the ink behaves under a press, how the colors mesh or
not in this or that process, etc. It also has great detailed photographs
of enlargements of printed lines by different methods.
Now, on the debate... oh forget it! Here's a humorous true story:
Once I saw an artist signing of a "limited edition" of "prints." He was
signing, long hand with a pencil, a series of these posters, editioning
them thusly: "1 of a limited second edition of 10,000", "2 of a limited
second edition of 10,000"... I mean, come on, Graham, add to that his
signature, the title and the date, now THAT is HARD WORK!!!
Just came back from the Charlevoix opening in New Mexico and saw in the
flesh, original Hauser and Rich prints. Wonderful work, always better in
person. I feel proud to be in such good company. The rest of
Albuquerque, by the way, is selling reproductions of Indian pots,
pictures of Indian pots, reproduced faithfully, and reproductions of
posters of pictures of Indian pots, in limited editions. Or something
like that.
But Santa Fe, if anyone ever gets around to going there, is an art
lover's paradise.
I better get back to the studio. I think I will from now on gnaw on
virgin cherry wood with my teeth and nails, printing only with my bare
knuckles on my own home made paper made from autumn leaves. Wonder if
that will increase the value of my prints... oh wait, cacti don't have
leaves, bummer.
Cada uno es cada uno,
Maria

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

From: Gregory Robison <grobison@swiftuganda.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 07:46:40 +0300
Subject: [Baren 6745] Re: Computer Art 

Kampala, 20 November 1999

Dear Friends:
I have been enjoying the semi-annual revisitation on Baren of the question of
'what is art, what is a print, and how do we relate as artists to the market,'
and agree with the recent comment that it is both necessary and salutory that we
consider these issues regularly.  I also can identify with Jack (I think it was)
who marveled at those who could print AND contribute to the conversation AND
raise small children: I write this between dinnertime and bedtime with four
children in the house (Terso-the-Nigerian is not mine, but I'll make him brush
his teeth and bed him down with the others) and a wife who just called after a
week in Dar-Es-Salaam with the news she might be home by midnight tonight...  I
also know that my comrades-in-arms from the Peninsular Campaign in British
Columbia -- Barbara and Wanda and Marco Flavio and John -- wonder why I have
seemingly dropped off the face of the earth while they are printing & traveling
& hosting events & exchanging comments and so on. I hope they know that I
remember them fondly and am inspired by all the news of their work.  (But: John,
have your accounts receivable clerk contact my accounts payable clerk about
shipping-and-handling of Exchange 2.)

But Jeanne's mentioning Ingres  moves me to comment:

Are there any great artists, in East or West, who consciously shunned or
disdained certain available technologies or materials in their work?  I don't
think so.  The great ones, on the contrary, dabbled in all kinds of things, and
violated the "rules" constantly -- including rules about limiting editions, and
whatnot.  The Great Ones are with us still as exemplars, and we should follow
their lead.

What is also striking, however, is that all great artists eventually settle down
into rather restricted technique and style, a somewhat limited pallette or range
of materials.  At least their great work comes from the narrower stream, not the
broad one in which they may still play or relax throughout their careers.  They
do this not because they assert some moral superiority to, say, tempera made
from eggs you've collected yourself, or from some prissy belief that only oils
can make a true painting, etc.  This is the attitude of lesser minds.   Their
eventual self-restriction comes rather from realizing the wisdom that artistic
achievement doesn't happen by chance.  A lot comes from dabbling and playing
around, but one thing that doesn't is great work.  That only comes from long
struggle in one direction.  Mastering the materials and developing certain ideas
takes a long time, and there isn't much time.  Ars longa, vita brevis.  In a
certain sense, you've got to do the same thing over and over and over again to
get it right.  This is true of all the arts: take any piece of literature you
admire and you'd be staggered by the number of rough drafts -- generally written
out longhand! -- that the writer insisted on making before the work was right.

I don't know anything about computer art, but I feel confident in asserting
this: there will be true artists who will work in this medium, and we (or our
children) will admire their achievements as art...but nothing enduring or
artistic will come from a sixteen year old pushing a button and saying, "Look at
the cool effect I get when I...um...do this!"  The pernicious side of computers
in the arts is the subliminal message it sends that the student doesn't have to
work to get the results...  You've ALWAYS got to work.

Oh dear.  Where did all those words come from?  I wanted to comment about
Ingres, but I've gone on too long.

Gregory Robison

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

End of Baren Digest V9 #790
***************************