Baren Digest               Saturday, 15 June 2002       Volume 19 : Number 1863


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

From: GraphChem@aol.com
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:59:56 EDT
Subject: [Baren 18353] Re: wire brushing 

I hate to jump in with product information, but Graphic Chemical sells (to 
another industry), small brass bristled brushed.  They are available in two 
sizes, 1/2" x 1 1/2" (about $1.00) and 1" x 2" ($5 or thereabouts). While I 
don't think it would work for what you're doing, we also carry Nylon Brushes 
in the same sizes and at the same approximate prices.

We stock these brushes for our commercial engraver accounts, but have had 
quite a few artists purchase them, too.

By the way, thanks to all of you who ordered the Finnish Woodblock book, 
we've almost exhausted our current supply and had to reorder from the 
publisher already. This is almost unheard of - to sell out stock on an item 
that is neither in the catalog nor on the web page, yet. We appreciate the 
interest.

Dean Clark
Graphic Chemical & Ink Company


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

From: Mike Lyon <mikelyon@mlyon.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:05:35 -0500
Subject: [Baren 18354] Munch's "The Kiss" 

Here's a link to an excellent image of Edvard Munch's "The Kiss" (printed 
about 1807-1902) which recently sold for $110,000 at Christies (I guess 
it'll take at least 100 years for all our current prints to become so well 
appreciated :-):  http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/NEWS/ripley/ripley11-14-3.asp
It appears to have been printed from two blocks -- the first block in light 
gray, uncarved very weathered (or very worked on with sandpaper, perhaps) 
conifer which deeply embossed the paper, and the second block carved with 
the image of the kissing couple printed in black, and probably printed with 
little enough pressure to have allowed the emobossing left by the first 
block to modulate the depth of color left by the second, so the grain of 
the first block shows through.  Definitely worth a look!

Mike


At 05:31 AM 6/14/2002 -0400, Myron Turner wrote:

>If I remember that print correctly, Munsch used a single block from
>which he cut out the section with the figures--which is why there's
>a white line around them.





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

From: Mike Lyon <mikelyon@mlyon.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:44:54 -0500
Subject: [Baren 18355] Exchange #14 Technical postings etc. 


I have read with great interest all our (numerous!) postings about 
technique, letterpress, editioning, saving bad prints, and so on...

Those postings really weren't specific to our exchange and would have 
genuinely enriched the BarenForum.  I don't think we should carry on that 
sort of side discussion over here in our little Baren14 group any 
longer.  Let's make it a rule to post that stuff directly to the entire 
BarenForum at mailto:baren@ml.asahi-net.or.jp and reserve this 
baren14@YahooGroups.com eGroup for stuff which is really specific to our 
exchange -- stuff which would be annoying and detract from the BarenForum 
itself like:
    * Exchange 14 deadlines
    * whose prints have been received
    * whose haven't
    * whose are lost in the mail
    * great excuses why we are running a bit late
    * questions about postage and packing, and insurance and addresses
    * all that sort of thing
In other words, let's make this Baren14 forum be for #14 stuff 
<ONLY>.  Question and comments of a technical nature or which might be of 
general interest ought to be moved back over to the BarenForum where they 
properly belong and can be appreciated (and answered) by all members.

OK?

Mike



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

From: "Tyrus Clutter" <TRClutter@NNU.Edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:51:14 -0600
Subject: [Baren 18356] 9-11 Prints 

   I'm putting on my gallery director hat today (as I lose more and more
hair I find that it would be better for me to wear a hat more often). I
found out today that I won't be able to use a traveling show that the
Mexican Consulate had organized because it won't be available when I
would need it. One opening show (august and sept) is going to be of work
by Georges Rouault, from the Miserere (sorry not quite relief printing.
but stunning none-the-less). So, I was wondering if I might be able to
use the 9-11 prints, as the timing would be good, and I had actually
thought of doing this back in 2001. Who do I contact, what do I do?

TyRuS


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

From: "Linda" <LMHTWB@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:08:05 -0700
Subject: [Baren 18357] Re: Munch's "The Kiss" 

>From Mike Lyon:


> It appears to have been printed from two blocks -- the first block in

light

> gray, uncarved very weathered (or very worked on with sandpaper, perhaps)
> conifer which deeply embossed the paper, and the second block carved with
> the image of the kissing couple printed in black, and probably printed

with

> little enough pressure to have allowed the emobossing left by the first
> block to modulate the depth of color left by the second, so the grain of
> the first block shows through.


Mike,

I hate to say this, since I'm a relative newbie to printing, but I disagree
with you.  "The Kiss" appears to me to be printed from one block as a
reduction.  If you look closely at the bottom, the black area does not line
up exactly with the brown area, which I take as a slight misregistration.
So, we agree that there was two impressions.

Now, if you look closely at the top of the figures, you will notice that the
grain lines in the background match up exactly with the dark areas in the
figures, and light areas in the background match the light areas in the
figures.  If Munch printed the background and embossed the paper, the
lighter areas would be protruding from the surface, so when he printed the
black plate, those embossed areas would definitely print.  The areas not
printed would be offset from one another.  The only way for him to get the
embossing and have the dark/light areas match up would be to print the
background as an intaglio, but one quick look at the knot on the right and
it's apparent he didn't do that.

To me, he had to have done a reduction print, as this would keep the highs
and lows lined up.  But then again, I may be missing something, either
because I've been out in the sun too much this morning, or because we are
dealing with an image on a computer screen.  (Hmm, maybe someone will buy us
an original print of this so we can study it further?!)

Linda


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

From: "Myron Turner" <mturner@Ms.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:31:58 -0400
Subject: [Baren 18358] Re: Munch's "The Kiss" 

As I pointed out this a.m., The Kiss was printed from a single block 
from which the kissing figures were cut out and inked separately.  In 
the images I've looked at over the web, it's not really apparent--but 
in larger illustrations you can see that around the two figures is a 
white line--this is the saw cut.    These types of bloocks are 
sometimes called "puzzle" blocks.  Munch made a number of prints 
using this method.  Another one is called "Two Women on the 
Shore", where the technique may be a bit more apparent.

Myron Turner

On 14 Jun 2002, at 12:08, Linda wrote:


> From Mike Lyon:
> 
> 

> > It appears to have been printed from two blocks -- the first block in

> light

> > gray, uncarved very weathered (or very worked on with sandpaper, perhaps)
> > conifer which deeply embossed the paper, and the second block carved with
> > the image of the kissing couple printed in black, and probably printed

> with

> > little enough pressure to have allowed the emobossing left by the first
> > block to modulate the depth of color left by the second, so the grain of
> > the first block shows through.

> 
> Mike,
> 
> I hate to say this, since I'm a relative newbie to printing, but I disagree
> with you.  "The Kiss" appears to me to be printed from one block as a
> reduction.  If you look closely at the bottom, the black area does not line
> up exactly with the brown area, which I take as a slight misregistration.
> So, we agree that there was two impressions.
> 
> Now, if you look closely at the top of the figures, you will notice that the
> grain lines in the background match up exactly with the dark areas in the
> figures, and light areas in the background match the light areas in the
> figures.  If Munch printed the background and embossed the paper, the
> lighter areas would be protruding from the surface, so when he printed the
> black plate, those embossed areas would definitely print.  The areas not
> printed would be offset from one another.  The only way for him to get the
> embossing and have the dark/light areas match up would be to print the
> background as an intaglio, but one quick look at the knot on the right and
> it's apparent he didn't do that.
> 
> To me, he had to have done a reduction print, as this would keep the highs
> and lows lined up.  But then again, I may be missing something, either
> because I've been out in the sun too much this morning, or because we are
> dealing with an image on a computer screen.  (Hmm, maybe someone will buy us
> an original print of this so we can study it further?!)
> 
> Linda
> 


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

From: Mike Lyon <mikelyon@mlyon.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:58:13 -0500
Subject: [Baren 18359] Re: Munch's "The Kiss" 


Hi, Linda -- I like the way you deconstructed the print, and for all I know 
you may be absolutely correct -- but Pablo Picasso <has> been widely 
credited as the 'inventor' of reduction printing after first introducing 
the technique in 1959, and the Edvard Munch print is dated around 1900 or so...

http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/NEWS/ripley/ripley11-14-3.asp

And Myron Turner may be right about "The Kiss", too.  Munch <did> frequently 
use a fret saw (has a very thin blade for fitting frets to 
musical instruments), to cut out contours for color printing, but in the 
example of "The Kiss" in the link above, it sure doesn't appear to be a 
"puzzle print" to me -- the gray of the first block shows through so many 
little places, and there's that little, very thin wedge of gray at the 
bottom of the figures, too...

I suppose it's <possible> that he first printed the entire block on the 
page and then used the fret saw to cut the jigsaw couple piece from the 
original block, then carved the cut-out and inked it, slipped it back into 
the uninked part of the block and... That certainly would be consistent 
with Linda's AND Myron's theories, and shoot the Picasso theory right out 
of the water at the same time!   ???

 [;-)] 

Mike



At 12:08 PM 6/14/2002 -0700, Linda wrote:

>Mike,
>
>I hate to say this, since I'm a relative newbie to printing, but I disagree
>with you.  "The Kiss" appears to me to be printed from one block as a
>reduction.  If you look closely at the bottom, the black area does not line
>up exactly with the brown area, which I take as a slight misregistration.
>So, we agree that there was two impressions.




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

From: richard stockham <richardjs_2000@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 18360] Re: Munch's "The Kiss" 

To further complicate and add to the fun of the
discussion about "The Kiss" look at the reproductions
of the prints found on these sites:

http://www.moma.org/docs/collection/printsbooks/c46.htm

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MUSEUM/Armory/galleryK/munch.244a.html

There are significant differences, though obviously
from the same block(s). This would argue against a
reduction print. The different registration argues
against a puzzle print (notice the different alignment
at the bottom). The MOMA print may be made with a
different image block (notice the missing line of the
woman's arm in this print). Perhaps this print is a
puzzle after all!

Richard Stockham
Birmingham, Alabama


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

From: Minna Sora <indian.girl@luukku.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:00:18 +0300
Subject: [Baren 18361] Re: Messed up prints (off topic) 

> Ahhh but Minna we use such exquisite papers to print on!  It seems 
>such a shame to throw all that money away  Even using it for gift 
>wrap is a better use than the waste receptacle and so much grander 
>than store bought!
>
>   Hey is paper fetish a printmaker's thing or do other artists drool 
>over the paper racks in supply stores
>
>Patti 

yes to be honest I haven't thrown them away only put those not so 

perfect or total rubbish prints to special roll if I'll some day find 
a way to use them
And the whole lot of money in them is one reason to put them somewhere 
out of sight
Only once I threw away them I was moving and they were only those 
really horrible proofs printed on extra bad paper

Maybe I'm too critical because there seems to be so much of imperfect 
prints and few things get ready and attracts my eye

There's something in printmaking you could always do it better or 
try to make better edition or different way so in a way it never 
gets really ready

And Mike forgive me not noticing it was baren14-list
The exhange rose up so much discussion

Minna


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

From: "Linda" <LMHTWB@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:41:26 -0700
Subject: [Baren 18362] Re: Munch's "The Kiss" 

Okay, this is not getting a lot of art done, but it's fun trying to figure
out how this print was put together.  But I have a basic question concerning
this print, before I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what is going
on.

I looked at the three images of "The Kiss" and the dimensions are different.
The MOMA print is 9 5/16 x 11 11/16" and the Armory version is 18 3/8 x 18
1/4".  The Christie's one is 22 5/8 x 18 1/2".  What exactly are the
dimensions refering to?  I always assumed it was the image size, but maybe
not.  (At least on my web site, the dimensions are the image area and not
the paper size.)  Or does the MOMA dimensions refer to the image size and
the other two are paper size?

Linda


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

From: Greg Carter <artfool@Bulloch.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 23:46:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Baren 18363] Re: Munch's "The Kiss" 

I have a book with images of a number of Munchs blocks including the kiss.
it is at the office so I am not looking at it but i am sure it was a jig
sawed block wich he did a lot.

Greg



>Okay, this is not getting a lot of art done, but it's fun trying to figure
>out how this print was put together.  But I have a basic question concerning
>this print, before I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what is going
>on.
>
>I looked at the three images of "The Kiss" and the dimensions are different.
>The MOMA print is 9 5/16 x 11 11/16" and the Armory version is 18 3/8 x 18
>1/4".  The Christie's one is 22 5/8 x 18 1/2".  What exactly are the
>dimensions refering to?  I always assumed it was the image size, but maybe
>not.  (At least on my web site, the dimensions are the image area and not
>the paper size.)  Or does the MOMA dimensions refer to the image size and
>the other two are paper size?
>
>Linda





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

From: mturner@Ms.UManitoba.CA
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:59:36 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [Baren 18364] Re: Munch's "The Kiss" 

What appears to be a different bottom alignment is a potential effect 
of puzzzle prints in which a piece is cut from the bottom margin.  
Getting the pieces back together exactly the same in each print is 
diffciult if not impossible.  Because of the kerf--the width of the 
wood cut out by the saw--the pieces are loose.  So, what has 
happened in this print is that in one case the piece with the two 
figures has dropped slightly further below the margin of the 
enclosing block than in the other.

As for the line in the woman's arm--it in fact appears to be in both 
prints and the difference is in the inking.  But even so, this wouldn't 
prove much since they could be different states--in one the line 
more heavily inscribed than in the other.  But what Much's prints do 
tell us is how Munch and his contemporaries viewed prints--not as 
editions but as unique works


This is from the Munch Museum in Oslo, which has a good copy of 
the jpg of the Armory version of the print:

       Woodcut with gouges and fretsaw 470 x 470 mm

The fretsaw is the saw used to cut out the pieces.  470mm is 18 1/2 
inches.  Why the MOMA print is designated as almost half the size 
**is** a puzzle.

For the Much museum version go to:                     
http://www.museumsnett.no/munchmuseet/english/artworks.htm

Myron Turner


On 14 Jun 2002, at 13:40, richard stockham wrote:

> look at the reproductions
> of the prints found on these sites:
> 
> http://www.moma.org/docs/collection/printsbooks/c46.htm
> 
> http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MUSEUM/Armory/galleryK/munch.244a.html
> 
> There are significant differences, though obviously
> from the same block(s). This would argue against a
> reduction print. The different registration argues
> against a puzzle print (notice the different alignment
> at the bottom). The MOMA print may be made with a
> different image block (notice the missing line of the
> woman's arm in this print).


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

End of Baren Digest V19 #1863
*****************************