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

Baren Digest            Wednesday, 16 September 1998    Volume 04 : Number 282

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

From: David Bull <davebull@woodblock.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:27:55 +0900
Subject: [Baren 1676] Tamarind editioning guidelines ... 

Jeanne wrote:
> I would like to have a copy of the Tamarind editioning.

Ray wrote:
> ... it might be helpful if you could reproduce the Tamarind list.

OK guys, here it is.

This is a reproduction of most of pages 113~114 from the book "The
Tamarind Book of Lithography: Art & Techniques".  Of course, I do not
have their explicit permission to reproduce it here, but this seems like
one of those 'fair use' occasions, I think ...

Some of their points are specific to lithographs, but most of this is
more general, and would perhaps apply to woodblock work too.

(I don't quite know _why_ I'm doing this - I think most of you know what
_I_ think of the practice of edition numbering ...)

*** start extract ***

5.1	SIGNING AND NUMBERING THE EDITION

<snip>

	Before the artist begins to sign and number the prints, each impression
must be examined and compared with the bon a tirer. Weak or flawed
impressions must be placed aside, later to be destroyed. In some
workshops the printer may wish to look through the edition before the
artist; in other workshops a curator may be employed to examine all
editions prior to signature. Although either the printer or a curator
may reject an impression that does not meet the workshop's standard, the
artist has final responsibility for acceptance. Through his signature he
attests to the quality of each impression and to his acceptance of it.

	Both the form and the placement of the signature are determined by the
artist. He may use his initials or his full name; he may use pencil or
colored crayon; he may place the signature in any position on the face
of the print, in the margin or within the image. Occasionally, when the
aesthetic of the work demands it, he may elect to place his signature on
the reverse side of the print.

	As the prints are signed they are also numbered or designated as
proofs. The numbered impressions in an edition of twenty are marked
1/20, 2/20, and through to 20/20. As all impressions should be identical
with the bon a tirer, with which each is compared at the time of
signature, the sequence of the numbers has no meaning; the first print
in an edition of lithographs should be no different from the last. As a
result, few printers make a practice of numbering impressions at the
press. In color lithography such a practice would in any event be
fruitless, for the impressions will not normally be printed in the same
sequence as each color is added. The true meaning of the number 1/20 is
thus that the impression is one of an edition of twenty, not
specifically that it is the first of twenty.

	At times, particularly when a large edition is printed, a reserved or
preferred edition will be printed on a different kind of paper. Two
hundred impressions might be made on Arches paper, for example, and
another twenty five on Japan. When this is done it is customary to use
Roman numerals on the preferred edition: I/XXV, II/XXV, etc.

	After all the numbered impressions have been signed, a few remaining
impressions of good quality may be designated artist's proofs. Although
there is no universally accepted limit, the number of artist's proofs
should be very small. To permit a large number of artist's proofs is to
practice a deception, for the numbering of the edition thus becomes
meaningless.

	By custom, the bon a tirer impression, after signature by the artist,
becomes the property of the workshop or the collaborating printer.
Because such impressions are unique and of perfect quality they have a
particular appeal to collectors, thus tending to command a premium price
when on occasion they enter the marketplace.


5.2	DESIGNATION OF PROOFS

	Signed impressions beyond the numbered edition are variously described:

	1. Artist's proofs are impressions of a quality fully comparable to
that of the numbered edition. They may be printed upon the same paper as
that used for the edition or, if projected and planned in advance, upon
a special paper. In France such impressions may be marked either epreuve
d'artiste or, alternatively, hors commerce, sometimes abbreviated h.c.

	2. Trial proofs are impressions printed before the bon a tirer. Trial
proofs may sometimes differ slightly from the numbered edition in that
they were printed before minor corrections were made in the stone or
plate. At other times they may simply be weak impressions printed en
route to the bon a tirer. It is misleading and incorrect to call a weak
impression printed during the run of the edition a trial proof; such
impressions are merely faulty impressions, and, as such, should be
destroyed.

	3. State proofs are impressions that differ markedly from the numbered
edition. Such impressions come into being before major alterations in
the stone or plate. If an image undergoes a series of major
modifications, there may well be a series of differing state proofs
which together record the stages in its evolution. On occasion, a
numbered edition may be printed, the stone may subsequently be altered,
and a second edition printed. In this event, the prints may be regarded
as two separate but related editions, and only the intermediate proofs
between them (if any) would be designated state proofs.

	4. Progressive proofs are impressions from single stones for a color
lithograph or from a combination of such stones, short of the final
print. A set of progressive proofs for a four-color lithograph might
well consist of the following:
	Stone A alone
	Stone B alone
	Stone A plus B
	Stone C alone
	Stone A plus B plus C
	Stone D alone
(An impression with all four stones would be the bon a tirer of the
edition. See sec. 7.18.)

	5. Color trial proofs are impressions that differ from the edition in
the color of the ink used. Such impressions characteristically come into
being as adjustments are being made in color, and it is not uncommon
that in the printing of a complex color lithograph there are many of
them, each differing from the others.

	6. Presentation proofs are impressions of a quality comparable to that
of the edition, which are not otherwise designated but which are
inscribed by the artist to a friend or collaborator.

	7. Cancellation proofs are made after the full edition has been printed
in order to provide a record of the defacement or permanent alteration
of the image on the stone. In professional shops the cancellation proof
is never made until after the edition has been collated and signed. Only
when the artist verifies that the desired number of impressions indeed
exists is it safe to modify the stone for printing of the cancellation
proof.

	Various methods are employed to cancel a stone. Portions of the image
can be scraped, honed, or deleted with a strong etch. In any case, the
character of the cancellation should clearly reveal that the printing
image has been permanently altered and that no further impressions
identical with the edition can be taken from it.

	Cancellation proofs should be printed on paper identical with that of
the edition. Because only one cancellation proof is printed for each
edition, such impressions are unique and hence valued by specialized
collectors.

	After the edition and the cancellation proof have been printed, the ink
should be removed from the stone with lithotine. In this condition the
stone can be stored or its image can be effaced by grinding in
preparation for new work. Images that are eventually to be effaced
should not be stored or reground while ink is on their surface. Dried
ink is difficult to remove, and its presence during grinding, though not
serious, sometimes prolongs the process.

	Prints made on newsprint paper or other proofing papers should not be
signed by the artist. Because such papers are subject to rapid
deterioration, all such proofs should be destroyed.

*** end extract ***


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

From: "suzie aar" <thankful1@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:28:23 -0700
Subject: [Baren 1677] Re:   Baren Digest V4 #281 charset="iso-8859-1" 

Daniel,
I just had to respond to your most recent post about Hiroshige. Do I hate
Hiroshige now because his work has been so often reproduced with little or
no effort made to keep track of how many or how often it is printed? Of
course not. But am I suspicious of every Hiroshige print I EVER see, and
wonder how many thousands of them are packed in drawers and boxes around the
world ? You bet! Does the fact that his work has been reprinted with
reckless abandon affect my appreciation of his art? I'm sorry to say, I
think it does. Just think of it, if the world were hip deep in woodblock
prints how many people would appreciate any of them? Sheer numbers has an
effect. A big part of the allure of woodblock prints for me ,as a collector,
is the fact that they are rare.

Regards,
George Aar

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 1678] Re: Patrick Press 

I wrote....
>When I get back home I will send you details re the Patrick Press.
>It comes highly recommended. I am not sure I could compare them to
>Rembrandt Graphics.
>I will be back in about a week

I see Ray sent you infor re this.
Let me know if you need anything else.

Regards,

Graham

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 1679] Re: [basswood 

Did I inform the people that asked me to include them in on Basswood.?

Well as it turned out the Air Canada strike prevented us from getting back
east and visiting the lumber yard.

Sorry about that.  I will be trying to find sources and will keep all in mind.

Graham

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

From: <DARICH@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 10:12:05 -0700
Subject: [Baren 1680] Green drop 

I have not heard from Green Drop Ink since they offered to let us try the
product either.  I have been out of town for a few weeks and so have not
been adding my two cents.  Here are my opinions on those subjects I feel
strongly about. 	

As regards numbering of editions.  If the addition is open, fine don't
number the prints.  You can still sign them to document they are your own,
authentic work.  If an artist does sign and number the work then the number
of the last print is it.  No excuse justifies another print being pulled. 
It constitutes fraud to continue printing and is reprehensible.  In fact I
believe the blocks should be destroyed so that even the temptation to print
again is removed and to be able to guarantee that it is in fact a limited
work.  

As concerns exhibiting the print exchange portfolio in galleries.  It is my
opinion that this should not be done.  We have forty different individuals
here with widely varying skill and experience levels.  We have not created
or seen the combined work yet and have no way of knowing in advance weather
the work will be successful.  I am a professional artist and exhibit my
work widely but choose to limit my exhibitions to museums and universities.
 In all cases I choose where I show my work carefully as it influences my
reputation.  I know this my sound haughty but I am participating in this
exchange for the fun of it and because I know I will appreciate and be
inspired by a lot of the work I receive.  I am not interested in it
becoming a professional endeavor.  I would rather like to think that at
some distant time a researcher studying the surprising resurgence of
interest in the woodcut medium at the end of the 20th century will discover
by accident the exchange of works that was taking place in private.

Just my feelings,

Andrea Rich

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

From: Julio.Rodriguez@walgreens.com
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 12:45:41 -0500
Subject: [Baren 1681] re:editions/counterpoint 

At the risk of angering the dynamic duo (no, not Batman & Robin, but Graham
& Ray);

Ray writes:
>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."

Ray writes more:
>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."


PLEASE, please, please ......define the following terms:     Edition,
Collector, Publisher, Artist
 (hint: the first three have something to do with making money or some
money related function......)

I disagree with some of the comments made in earlier postings. There seems
to be lot of anger surrounding this topics.
There is nothing wrong with earning a living as an artist and/or wanting
your art to sell. But when we as ARTISTS
 CONSCIOUSLY limit the number of prints we make in order to infuence their
$$$ value and or market demand....is that wrong ?
When a book is printed (and please don't simplify by saying a book is not a
work of art !) it is perfectly okay to have a second printing, and a third,
etc, etc, until the demand stops.  The first edition books can have certain
special or monetary value to collectors. But where would we be today if the
artists (excuse me, I meant authors) would have said, okay you can print
20,000 copies and that's it ! No more reprints, no more second printings,
forget it !

I think the whole subject of labeling & numbering  prints, destroying
blocks, etc; is governed by greed and a desire to make a profit by
collectors & publishers and yes at times...artists.  It has very little to
do with the true artistic value of the work. Printmaking is a reproductive
process. If an artist is happy with making just one or a handful of prints,
SO BE IT !  If the same artist  then wants to print 200 copies later on, SO
BE IT ! Copy #200 is no different in it's artistic value than copy #1.
Those of you (and I mean this in a nice way !) that look at that little
numbering thing  at the bottom of the print are more interested in how much
$$$ is going to be worth .  Just because you only print 15 copies does not
mean your work is better or has more value that another artist who prints
1000 copies.

Again, I quote James Michener from "Tthe Floating World":
 "...neither the medium nor the size of a picture or print is of
importance when assessing its aesthetic value...it is the quality of
draughtsftmanship, composition and expressiveness that are the ultimate
bases of assessment...".

I don't see anything here regarding the number of an edition or regarding
repeated editions. Some people buy art because they love the work and want
to have it nearby and others buy art because they see it as a future
investment.

 I side with Dave B.'s  point of view on the subject of numbering prints. I
hope I did not offend any baren members with my thoughts.  If we choose to
be artists, we need to live within the anomalities of our times &
commercial structure.

Face it...being an artist  is the only "business" where you can be worth
more after you are dead than while living.  

JULIO.

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

End of Baren Digest V4 #282
***************************