[Baren} the mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking Baren Digest Saturday, 3 June 2000 Volume 11 : Number 1032 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wanda Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 08:49:46 -0700 Subject: [Baren 9899] Re: lunch and prints I'll second that, Barbara! While looking at prints, I decided I was really unprepared to look at prints in any other but a superficial way. To properly get all you can out of an experience like that - you need a notebook or sketch pad & pencil, a magnifying glass or loupe, and a small number of the very best prints. That is the way we plan to look at them next time! I do have a question about Hasui's prints that we were so lucky to see. How does he get that wonderful velvety black? Is this your "black hole" ink, David? If so - I want a big batch of it! The print I am thinking of, was an oban size print - huge black rocks & a meltingly blue waterfall with little orange-colored maples leaves falling over the cliff & into the water. It was *so* luscious. We also looked at several of Hiroshi Yoshida's prints. One was a harbor scene with boats & reflections in the water. Wonderful line work and the reflections were just fantastic. Hiroshige' prints were interesting. We were both very puzzled by this one print. It had people & a bridge & rushes in the front of the scene (which were *very* well done), but the houses & mountains & trees in the background were very coarse & childlike. Would they carve extra blocks & print part of the scene from the original blocks & part from (very poorly) carved substiture blocks? We plan to spend more time poring over these prints! It is an education in itself. Wanda ------------------------------ From: Graham Scholes Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 09:29:28 -0700 Subject: [Baren 9900] Re: aboriginal art >Graham, >I did not know it was a law in Canada that you cannot use any Native images if you are not Native. Barbara.... It is an unwritten law. Public galleries will not accept this kind of work for exhibition and or in any of their art rental programs. A number of commercial galleries have followed suit. I got to thinking last night about Dave's statement >'appropriation' ... not in my dictionary ... It doesn't matter ...... It's in Theirs. Graham ------------------------------ From: Graham Scholes Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 09:55:38 -0700 Subject: [Baren 9901] Re: Starving artists and appropriation >>Graham wrote: >>why are there so many starving artists? Gerald wrote..... >It's insulting to the genuinely starving in the world to perpetuate >such ridiculous and self-absorbed fallacies. It's an expression and I did not mean to used it in the literal sense..... I should have attached a (<; with the phrase. Graham ------------------------------ From: "Philip Smith" Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:33:16 -0700 Subject: [Baren 9902] Re: Witch hunting... Dimitris,....lighten up buddy!!! We never burn witches here in the NW, = we dunk 'em in the river, head first! Much more effective! You have a = good day! Philip ------------------------------ From: Bella1yopp@aol.com Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:46:24 EDT Subject: [Baren 9903] Lynd Ward... any experts? Hello, I was hopeing that someone out there in Barenland knows something about Lynd Ward. My boyfriend bought a Lynd Ward A/P print and I suggested he get it appraised to see if it really is the real thing. It funny, all this discussion about computers, real prints and laser cutters had me thinking. We compared it to the print in God's Man and I thought close but hard to tell.... it could be a laser print.... not that I've ever seen a laser print up close and personal (that I know of). So if anyone knows the particulars about Lynd Ward, email me directly please. Thanks, Amanda ------------------------------ From: Jack Reisland Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 09:56:25 -1000 Subject: [Baren 9904] Re: Appropriation David Bull wrote: > ...But surely, to _use_ some particular cultural iconography is not to > _steal_ it. A visual image is something that may be duplicated > infinitely ... To have an 'outsider' using something like a totem pole > design (say) in his art, in no way detracts from the ability of the > minority member to use it. > > I would have thought that the 'new blood' being brought to the > iconography would have been appreciated, rather than decried ... Perhaps an extreme example might help. In Arizona, where I grew up, live the Hopi people, who's religion is based on the worship of various facets of their surrounding environment, through their many "spirits" or deities known as Kachinas. This is an oversimplification, but anyway, the images of their Kachinas have been appropriated all over the southwest, and used as neon signs for liquor stores, laundromats, etc. The Jim Beam company even made a liqueur bottle in the form of a Kachina. The Hopi were, understandably, not amused, particularly in light of the devastating impact of alcoholism on the Indian reservations nationwide. Remember, as opposed to your use of Japanese cultural images, the use of Native American images is usually based on -religious- images. In another example, it was discovered that a nationally known, high profile (and high priced) contemporary Indian painter had not only, as it turned out, appropriated images, but a heritage as well. He had completely fabricated his Indian background, grew his hair long, wore Navaho jewelry, the whole image. The Indian Art market in the Southwest US has been a very lucrative one for quite some time, and of course, it has been taken advantage of for quite some time, with jewelry and dolls being imported by the case load from Asia, textile and ceramics from Mexico, all in imitation of Native arts, and all competing for the valuable tourist dollars. When a whole population of people have little economic resources other than their arts and crafts, it is a little easier to see how they can become defensive of them in the face of large scale exploitation. Although I don't agree with across the board prohibition of the use of another culture's images, I can easily understand how it has come to this point. Jack Aiea, Hawaii ------------------------------ From: David Bull Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 06:49:59 +0900 Subject: [Baren 9905] Re: Hasui colours Wanda wrote: > I do have a question about Hasui's prints that we were so lucky to see. > How does he get that wonderful velvety black? Is this your "black hole" > ink, David? If so - I want a big batch of it! The print I am thinking > of, was an oban size print - huge black rocks & a meltingly blue > waterfall with little orange-colored maples leaves falling over the > cliff & into the water. It was *so* luscious. Well I can't identify the particular print you mean (it may be one of his 'Isetatsu' published prints), but anyway, in that sort of print generally, the deeper colours are made by multiple (and I mean _multiple_) overlays of colour. Speaking in general, shin-hanga prints of this type (Hasui, Yoshida) are done with relatively thin watery colours ... The wonderful deep effects come from the large number of applications of colour to the paper. A typical Hasui print will have 60~80 applications of pigment, from somewhere around 20 blocks. Dave ------------------------------ From: "Ramsey Household" Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:27:14 -0700 Subject: [Baren 9906] Re: Appropriation Dave wrote: > I would have thought that the 'new blood' being brought to the > iconography would have been appreciated, rather than decried ... > > Interesting ... I had an art history teacher who said that when two cultures come together there is art. Both sides change each other and become more dynamic. I believe this is true. If you look at the especially at the U.S. and Canada, and certainly other places also, you see the energy of the collision. If you wish things to remain static, then perhaps this will seem like a bad thing. I guess it depends on your point of view. Carolyn ------------------------------ From: "Horacio" Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 22:12:58 -0300 Subject: [Baren 9907] Re: Starving artists and appropriation Some questions about appropriation: [1st] In 1988, I went to a wonderful exhibition at Mus E9e d'Orsay entitled "Van Gogh E0 Paris" and saw some Vincent oil paintings that were copies of Japanese woodblock prints. ( e.g."Japonaiserie, pont sous la pluie, d E1pr E9s Hiroshige" 1887). Is this a case of inappropriate appropriation? [2nd] Do you think that Elvis, Bill Haley, Beatles and Stones etc, in the benefit of the big Recording Companies, had expropriate the Black blues music? Gerald wrote: >It's insulting to the genuinely starving in the world to perpetuate such ridiculous and self-absorbed fallacies. and I agree. Hor E1cio Rio / Brazil www.analisevital.com.br/xilograv.htm ------------------------------ From: Cucamongie@aol.com Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 22:47:18 EDT Subject: [Baren 9908] Meeting Jeanne Hi all, I had the pleasure of meeting fellow Barener Jeanne Chase in person (!) in NYC this evening, while on a much-needed break from my rent-paying word processing job. She is every bit as delightful and charming in person as she is in her posts, I only wish we had a longer time to visit! Of course I was tempted to call my job and tell them I had suddenly taken ill so I could have a few cappuccini martinis with her :) Best wishes Sarah Hauser Cucamongie@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Cucamongie@aol.com Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 22:58:51 EDT Subject: [Baren 9909] thermodynamics Sorry for posting twice, but I just had to comment on Graham's posting about "the thermodynamics of hell" - pure genius - it really made my day, he should have gotten an A++! As for all the thoughts on art/not art, computer art/not computer art, editioning/not editioning, etc. a number of interesting thoughts have come out of this discussion but all I can say is to each his own! (Wasn't a recent print exchange done about this? :) ) Oh yeah and don't forget the part about enjoying the process of creation, etc right?? best wishes all Sarah ------------------------------ From: "Philip Smith" Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 21:11:45 -0700 Subject: [Baren 9910] Re: Starving artists and appropriation Sarah,...you're right, creation is the best part,... and enjoying the process....I've washed windows,..drawing a subject you don't approve of is a far better way to spend the day. Horacio,....To imitate is the highest form of praise,..... And you know I haven't heard anyone say the name Bill Haley,...for years! Philip ------------------------------ From: Greg Robison Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 08:55:45 -0700 Subject: [Baren 9911] Lasers, computers, appropriation, etc. Kampala, 3 June 2000 No great artist, nor even any obscure artist worth emulating, ever worried as much as we do on this list about the "legitimacy" of various methods, tools, materials or techniques. This is because art is not fundamentally about methods, tools, materials or techniques -- or even about certain themes or subject matter. Great artists seem to break the rules regarding methods, tools, materials and techniques not because true artists are particularly irreverent or revolutionary or iconoclastic, but rather because they don't attribute the same importance to such things that non-artists do. Why, then, would anybody interested in pursuing life as an artist be concerned about "faithfulness to a tradition" or "purity" of methods or materials? It seems to me that there are various reasons, some more defensible than others: (1) I can only truly be expressive when a medium becomes to some extent "invisible" or "instinctive" in my hands. This requires a certain mastery, and the training period may require limiting myself -- at least for a time -- in a somewhat arbitrary fashion. When I am frustrated by a problem unique to the medium, I should not retreat to some more familiar and better-known medium. I must force myself to work within the medium in order to grow in understanding and mastery. (The "academic" argument) (2) Art is an expression of my cultural values, which may be besieged or suffer from a history of oppression or neglect. When I produce works using the historic or authentic tools, techniques and materials of my people, and use our traditional themes and idiom, I affirm those values and contribute to the cultural preservation or enrichment of my people (or of a people or culture I have adopted or am fond of). (The "ethnic" argument) (3) I find I have common ground with other artists when I dedicate myself to a particular art-form. We fellow-practitioners recognise each other immediately, seek each other out, help each other, share ideas and enjoy each other's company. It's a sort of fellowship that brings me social benefits and sense of community, too. (The "We Merrie Craftsmen" argument) (4) I know and can supply what the public wants -- at least the segment of the public that knows and is willing to buy my work. I've built up a reputation and a recongisable presence after long years of work. My public allows me to live from my art, and I honour and thank them for this by not disappointing them. (The "commercial" argument) (5) There are art-forms that have been made obsolete by cultural, economic, esthetic or technical changes, and yet may have a unique contribution to make, now and in the future. I want to keep these art-forms alive by understanding, respecting and mastering their methods, using the ancient tools and techniques, and perpetuating them in the purest form possible. Like a 'seed bank,' this preserves the 'genetic stock' for the future, and also gives us a window on a world that is now gone. (The "antiquarian" argument) Most artists have their foot in one or more of these 'sub-worlds' (and we could each define more of these, I'm sure). Each has a good and helpful side, and each may be used narrowly. But the important thing is that the 'artistic spirit' is not contained within any of these confining ways of living out a life as an artist. Without trying to define art itself, at least we can say that it is about seeing the world in complete freedom, glimpsing some truth, and expressing it in a memorable or convincing way -- using whatever tools and materials are at hand. Anything that limits this freedom to see and express is contrary to the nature of art. When someone tells you, "do not look over there," or "only use such-and-such a tool or material" they may be helping you to fit in comfortably to one of these 'sub worlds,' and for this, perhaps, you should be thankful, because there is much good that can come of it. But be aware, they are also clipping your wings as an artist. The Baren Forum is one of the 'sub-worlds' -- with a mix of some of the features described above. To get the benefits out of it, we need to know and accept the limits of that sub-world, while at the same time acknowledging that in a fundamental way art is not about limits. How to do this? Any ideas? Gregory Robison ------------------------------ From: B Mason Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 23:27:27 -0700 Subject: [Baren 9912] tretise from Uganda Greg, I automatically deleted your treatise like I do most of my mail and then had to search through the trash to retrieve it. It was too good to throw away. I think we are bits of all these and more. The learning curve for Hanga is pretty long and the more we do the less it seems we know. Coming to this medium from other types of printmaking is frustrating, we knew what we were doing and now, suddenly, we don't. I am too stubborn to give up all my old ways so will eventually have to figure out how to meld the two. I guess what you are really saying is non of us are great artists? I guess I can deal with that, I will settle for being a reasonably good printmaker! Barbara M ------------------------------ From: Graham Scholes Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:35:32 -0700 Subject: [Baren 9913] Re: Lasers, computers, appropriation, etc. Greg..... Was just going off to bed and your post came in..... I have said it before and I say it again...... WOW. You sure come up with some beauties that stimulate the grey matter. Me thinks Boot Camp is going to be more than just learning Hanga. Wonderful. Theme, what will be the theme. CYA in a couple of weeks. Graham ------------------------------ From: ?iso-8859-1?q?dimitris 20grammatikopulos? Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Baren 9914] Re: Baren ...By the way, Baren! www.plaindotline.gr has been practically upgraded. I've added my 'junin toiro' in 'Engraving' and the work of a friend of mine in the 'Guest Gallery'. You might want to check it out and let me know what you think. Regards, Dimitris ------------------------------ From: baren_member@woodblock.com (Michelle Morrell) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 03:55:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Baren 9915] Editions once more Josephine wrote: > Michelle said "It was my understanding that if an edition > really went well and you .wanted to do it again, you could > reprint it as "edition #2" and write that in the same How very curious--sifting thru all the old e-mail last night and actually finding a response to one of my foolish postings on the baren. I would prefer not to respond but feel obliged and apologize for what will be an excess of words. (I loved the hermit joke.) > deface or destroy your old plates. If you do make a second > print run with say a different colour then you would call > it 'print-name state II". I think you are correct about not doing a second edition exactly the same as being the proper current convention. It has never been a problem for me since the only time I have done a very similar second edition I had to recarve the second block. Usually I do reduction silkscreens or set an edition size larger than I anticipate printing, which is probably not kosher either. However, the entire system you mention above establishes an artificial value by scarcity. If there were only 25 cockroaches in the world, they would suddenly be prized. The only artist I've known personally who didn't number her prints was selling photolitho reproductions too fast and in too great a quantity to bother--or maybe she just forgot or lost count. After 5000 prints it didn't matter anymore. Another thing I was actually taught long ago but ignore is that an edition was supposed to be the number of prints you could do in a day or in one session. So if you had an edition of 100, that meant you did them all in the same session. It wasn't honest to claim an edition of 50 and then print only 5 and quit for the day because it got boring or your bones started aching. You had to do the entire run, and you couldn't finish up later. As I was doing woodcut reduction prints at the time, that little rule seemed particularly silly. My instructor must have known I didn't do it all in a day and looked the other way. I think it's a mistake to buy art as an investment--you should buy something because you enjoy it and can afford to see it often. I'd rather count beans than number prints, and print #1 is just the one I happened to sign first. Even if it were the first pulled, that wouldn't necessarily make it the most perfect. The main reason I keep a notebook is to keep track of where I am in numbering so that I don't have to do all the signing and numbering in one sitting. I rarely print the entire edition, even if all the prints I have already printed are sold. By then it has become stale. I'm sorry to have given you the impression I regularly do multiple runs of 30. Good gallery owners keep better records than I can. Bad ones you can never collect on--or if you do and you figure your time, expense in collecting (airfare in my case) and trouble, it's not even a wash. So, over the years I've evolved to the point of simply sending them to those I trust. If they lose a few, and they do, it's no big deal. Records of receipts are for tax purposes. > No. You take proofs for various reasons during the > production of a print. To make 'extras" and call them > proofs is again 'lying'. The accepted convention is that I disagree with you on this one. Check out presentation proofs, _The Complete Printmaker_ (Ross, Romano, Ross, 1992, p. 306). They are given away and are unnumbered. Bu 10% proofs you must mean "artists proofs." Whether "artists proofs" are numbered or not and what their function is depends on your source--Ralph Mayer refers to the entire numbered edition as artists proofs. The bon-a-tirer print is the "pick of the litter" as I believe Ruth Leaf put it, that you give to the printer who actually printed your work, if you didn't do that part of the work yourself. Which makes me wonder why the edition would then be of your "original print" and not the printer's. A few years ago, the US Patent Office was going to give the patent to printer, but I don't know how that was ever resolved. > Agreed. But as you can see above there's no need to thwart > convention and by consequence undermine the value of your > work. When in Rome it is prudent to do as the Romans do. This is with the understanding that the Romans may be totally debauched and depraved. You obviously value conventions. I believe their only intrinsic value is to maintain the established order. Whether the established order itself has any intrinsic value other than order is another question. > Now all this is nomencalture. The point is you make prints > and you sell them. How you go about it is up to you as has A "certificate of authenticity" documents all the pertinent data, including the print number, the number of editions, where and when it was printed, the paper, etc. These are good to include with the print if you are shrinkwrapping it yourself, otherwise; your vendor is guaranteed to lose them. :<) *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* Michelle Morrell jmmorrell@gci.net *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* ------------------------------ End of Baren Digest V11 #1032 *****************************