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

Baren Digest            Wednesday, 16 September 1998    Volume 04 : Number 281

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

From: Matthew.W.Brown@VALLEY.NET (Matthew W Brown)
Date: 15 Sep 98 12:03:48 EDT
Subject: [Baren 1667] Numbering, paper 

Daniel:
I appreciate your posting about print numbering a great deal. Would "WP"
(working proof) and "TP" (trial proof) be interchangeable? 
	On the subject of variations within an edition: Can you get into this a
bit more? Closer to the start of the Baren discussion (last winter) we got into
this subject. In my own approach if Jean wished to treat her variably colored
prints as an edition she could, numbering them 1/21, 2/21, etc. If she later
printed more than the 21 she would be re-editioning. If she made significant
changes to her blocks in addition to changes in colors she would be getting
into a "second state".
 
on deckled paper: It is my impression that moisture moves in and out of
deckle-edged paper differently than cut-edged paper; a torn or deckle edged
piece has the advantage of being less likely to develop warp and wrinkle. (I
guess the theory is that the cut edge creates a bit of a dam in the fibers
which introduces more  uneveness in the movement of moisture with changes in
the weather than the torn edge.) 

I like Dave's "Baren Sidebar" idea, but the Encyclopedia solution sounds good.
Seems like more work for Dave, but if he stays willing . . . 

Anyone heard from the Green Drop Ink people?

Matt

Sorrow not to have jumped in on the "spirituality of woodblock printmaking"
discussion. Perhaps it will come up again? A Baren sidebar for this winter?

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

From: Gary Luedtke <GLuedtke@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 13:14:33 -0400
Subject: [Baren 1668] Numbering, paper 

Matt wrote:
>Sorrow not to have jumped in on the "spirituality of woodblock
>printmaking" discussion. Perhaps it will come up again? A Baren 
>sidebar for this winter?

Any time Matt.   Whenever the spirit moves you!

Gary

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

From: DeArt1@aol.com
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 15:43:14 EDT
Subject: [Baren 1669] Re: [New Member 

My name is Donna Fenstermaker and I am a new member to this list.  Actually I
have been reading the postings for about a week.  I am barely keeping up.   So
about me.  I am a painter and a printmaker, with a MFA from California College
of Arts and Crafts in Oakland,California, in Printmaking. I am a member of the
California Society of Printmakers, I have been doing woodblocks for about 6
yrs.  Printing by hand till recently.  I bought a small proofing press this
summer and have printed only 2 prints on it.  I can print a max of 15" wide on
it.  I am working on a 4 color bleed 19"x26" and I am using a litho press for it.
I have called my press "Elbow Grease Press"
I have a web site with an older print on it.
http://www.art2u.com/artist/fenstermaker.html  or you can see painting at
http://www.lanminds.com/proarts98  and soon at http://www.ASDreams.org
That's about all I can think of as introduction.  If I missed anything just
ask.

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

From: Daniel Kelly <daniel@vowel.or.jp>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:46:26 +0000
Subject: [Baren 1670] Re: Numbering, paper 

Matthew W Brown wrote:

> Daniel:
> I appreciate your posting about print numbering a great deal. Would "WP"
> (working proof) and "TP" (trial proof) be interchangeable?

Why not. There is no Geneva Convention on this.

>         On the subject of variations within an edition: Can you get into this a
> bit more? Closer to the start of the Baren discussion (last winter) we got into
> this subject. In my own approach if Jean wished to treat her variably colored
> prints as an edition she could, numbering them 1/21, 2/21, etc. If she later
> printed more than the 21 she would be re-editioning. If she made significant
> changes to her blocks in addition to changes in colors she would be getting
> into a "second state".

Why not just leave the final number off in that case. That way not even Ray would
punish her for adding another proof when ever she wished. After all they are all
unique images.Is there really any reason for an artist to care if the editon is
limited? In whose benefit is it? Do we now hate Hiroshige because his prints were
all unlimited editions and variable and re- editioned even to this day?
Personally I don't hate Hiroshige.

Daniel

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

From: Ray Esposito <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:26:27 -0400
Subject: [Baren 1671] Re: Numbering, paper 

Daniel wrote:
>Why not. There is no Geneva Convention on this.

This is not completely true.  Most printmakers accept Tamarind's
definitions as the method for numbering prints and editions.  

Carolyn, it might be helpful if you could reproduce the Tamarind list.  My
book is packed away for my move and I have no idea where it is.  It would
be a great help to everyone.

>Why not just leave the final number off in that case. That way not even Ray 
>would punish her for adding another proof when ever she wished. 

I appreciate good sarcasm even when directed toward me but if you want to
bring our private fight onto Baren where it has no place I will be happy to
oblige.  I suggest this is not the place.

>After all they are all unique images.  Is there really any reason for an artist to 
>care if the editon is limited? 

An interesting point.  My answer is yes.  

It is always up to the artist which course he or she takes.  If an artist,
like Dave B. elects not to edition his work, then no one, and I mean no
one, has any right to suggest he is worng.  It is his art and he makes the
decisions on what to produce and how to produce it.  I collect Dave not
because it is editioned or not editioned, but because I love his art.  

BUT...if an artist elects to edition a print, than that artist must accept
the responsibility of completing that edition in a profession manner.  As
to your above comment I assume it refers to my hard stand about Carolyn's
friends.  I stand by those statements.  These people are ripping off the
public.  It is the trust we build with that public that allows us to
continue to produce art and make money.  Lose that trust and you lose
everything.  My comments had ZERO to do with editioning.  It had everything
to do with lying.

>In whose benefit is it? Do we now hate Hiroshige because his prints were
>all unlimited editions and variable and re- editioned even to this day?
>Personally I don't hate Hiroshige.

This is a silly arguement since no one on Baren to my memory, and I go back
to the first days, ever had anything negative to say about Hiroshige or any
of his compatriots.  They are all honored on Baren by everyone.

Ray Esposito

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

From: Daniel Kelly <daniel@vowel.or.jp>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:44:22 +0000
Subject: [Baren 1672] Re: Numbering, paper 

Ray Esposito wrote:
>  Most printmakers accept Tamarind's
> definitions as the method for numbering prints and editions.

Basically, I described that  two days ago.

>Why not just leave the final number off in that case. That way not even
> Ray would punish her for adding another proof when ever she wished.

 Just make myself perfectly clear lets say that If I could take out the final
number then you would have no reason to go after an artist. Why not go after
Andrew Wyeth or Yamagata if you wish. AW signs "limited edition "
reproductions. Yamagata and his type make limited editions in every numbering
system known to the world including abc's, roman numerals , etc. ,etc.. And
they still appear to be limited.

     Is there really any reason for an artist to care if the edition is
limited?

>>  In whose benefit is it? Do we now hate Hiroshige because his prints were
>> all unlimited editions and variable and re- editioned even to this day?
>> Personally I don't hate Hiroshige.
>
> This is a silly arguement since no one on Baren to my memory, and I go back
> to the first days, ever had anything negative to say about Hiroshige or any
> of his compatriots.  They are all honored on Baren by everyone.

Here Ray my point is that even artists we all respect and even love may not
following any convention.
The basis and history of the limited edition I elaborated in a recent posting.
I question if it really benefits the artist? If the world loves a work but you
didn't have the marketing analysis in advance should an artist suffer for it ?
Is it simply for the benefit of the sellers and their customer's fears?  Is
not limiting an edition a form of elitism. Or conversely does it hurt
Hiroshige? The editions of fine art prints are  small in any context if you
consider what commercial printing is.  And here in Japan the limited edition
is a foreign idea. Tokuriiki once told me not to get too carried away with
Prints and rarity. Its public art by it's very nature. He said in Edo a
woodblock print was about the same price as a bowl of soba.
They were unlimited.

Daniel

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 1673] The Real thing 

We had a wonderful couple of weeks with lots physical work, very little
rest, lots of play time with Grandchildren and the most important highlight
of all was fingering through prints and drawings by some to the world's
greatest artists.  Now I know this has nothing to do with WB's, but a
change is as good as a rest.

I was face to face with a Matisse charcoal drawings, several Picasso prints
and drawings,  Henry Moore drawing, a Miro print.
Andy Warhol acrylic and screenprint as well as several other early 20th
century famous Canadian artists.
Certainly the most exciting event I have ever experienced.

These and 30 million dollars more of art are in the permanent collection of
the Lethbridge University Art Gallery.

So now it is back in harness and time to get motoring with my project.

Graham

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 1674] Re: Editions 

Hi ...I'm back and must add to this thread.....

Jeanne wrote....
>>Yes, galleries need to know and I have a couple of friends who print, number
>>them, and when they are sold out they print them again. To me, this is not
>>fair to the buyers at all.
>>Thanks again !

Ray wrote.
>Fair is not the word, it is unethical.  Personally I would expose these
>clowns so fast it would make their heads spin.  I have been a collector for
>35 years and if I ever found out an artist did something like this I would
>do everything in my power to destroy them.

Ray, you forgot "BOTTOM LINE GREED"
These kind of people are not artists ... they are publishers with no ethics.

This reminds me of a comment made to me by an person that use to work at
Mill Pond Press.
He had just been in to see may work and was interested in acting as an agent.
He cautioned many people to not purchase any Robert Bateman reproductions
over the number of 100.
They were not signed by him but by a computer plotter.  A small gallery in
North Vancouver had a print of Bateman with two signatures on it.  Seems to
varify the story.

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

From: StudioJNC@aol.com
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 07:58:23 EDT
Subject: [Baren 1675] Re: Editions 

I have to make a desclaimer here; the "friends" term was used very loosly on
the subject of making their editions over and over.  They are artists who show
in outdoor art fairs. Not that there is anything wrong with art fairs. Did I
unleash a tiger?
But, hey, I really appreciate all of the info. I will sift through it all.
I would like to have a copy of the Tamarind editioning. I am sure they do not
have such a thing at my local bookstore
It would be informative to have it posted since we are printmakers.
Sally forth

Jeanne

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

End of Baren Digest V4 #281
***************************