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

Baren Digest               Friday, 8 January 1999       Volume 06 : Number 403

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

From: Julio.Rodriguez@walgreens.com
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:16:14 -0600
Subject: [Baren 2563] re: My BONNIE 

Hi Ray.....guess what ? I too drive an old Bonneville. My is a  green 93'
the one you  saw in all the commercials back a while.....sometimes it
behaves like an 83'.

I have used some very lethal chemicals in the past while building boats and
I tell you...between the flammable, the skin irritants and the
I-will-fry-your-brain-if-you-do-me-inside  types....it could be deadly.  I
will never work with that stuff again.
Part of my atttraction toward woodblock printing is that besides water and
a little flour/rice paste not much else is needed and ...you are totally
safe. That's part of the reason I stay away from oils because of the
chemicals needed for cleanup.

So does anybody knows what it takes to setup & make functional one of those
"live" web-cameras ?

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

From: jimandkatemundie@juno.com (James G Mundie)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:04:32 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2564] lemon-scented hand cleaner 

Gregory wrote:

>I read in the catalogue of Rembrandt Graphic Arts that their "Really Works 
>Hand Cleaner, non-abrasive" can be used to clean ink off relief blocks.  Since 
>this is a non-toxic solvent (and smells like lemon. Yum.), and can double as 
>hand-cleaner, this sounds interesting.  Does anybody have any experience >with this?

Boy oh boy, have I ever had experience with this stuff.  The shop I cut
my teeth in always had a big ol' can of the stuff next to the sink.  Its
scent is more evocative of Tang or Sweet Tarts than lemon, but it does do
a pretty good job of removing ink from hands and plates (I found it
especially good for getting ink out of delicate mezzotint plates).  The
only drawback is that a long day of printing in the shop and using the
cleaner would leave my hands chapped, red and raw.  Repeated exposure
seemed to be the  problem -- a lesson which could be learned merely by
watching dribbles of the cleaner strip the paint from its own can.

Other than that, a fine product!  :-)

Mise le meas,
James Mundie, Philadelphia USA 

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

From: "Ray Esposito" <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:55:17 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2565] Re: Welcome; Digital art; Toxicity  

>But maybe the confusion about how something was produced is not such a bad
>thing.  Picasso said: "I want to get to the state where nobody can tell how
>a picture of mine was made.  ...I want nothing but emotion to be given off
>by it."  That's from the program notes of his show at the 1939 World's Fair
>in New York.  (Ray and Graham can tell you more about it.  I think they
>were there.)

Graham

I think we have a smart aleck here.  We better keep an eye out on Greg as I
think he might be just a litttttle sharper than some.
:-)>

Cheers

Ray

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 18:00:33 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2566] Re: Digital Art 

Welcome Jake,
I'm sure you will enjoy.

Your input re digital art is great.
Hey, Gary get up of the floor.

Why do I say great.  It really is quite simple.
The more bods we get to do digital art the more the market will be filled
with the "stuff art" the less competion for us REAL printmakers.
So I say to ye.....crank it out.

Jake wrote....
>And as far as critics and collectors go? They'll catch on one day.

Yes, just the same way they caught on 25 years ago to reproduction art
thinking it was going somewhere.  Now you can't give it away.  This has not
happened to any of the works of say, W. J. Phillips original prints. Some
of his small piece (5" x 7) are going for $2500.00 or Sibil Andrews 8 x10
woodblocks for $3000.00 to $10.000.00

>We do this stuff because the juices just get flowin' some days.

So why does these here juices not flow with the real stuff like, pen,
pencil, ink, watercolour, oils etc etc etc.  Gosh I wish somebody could
explain this.

Graham

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 18:08:32 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2567] Re: Flashing? Cutters,etc. 

Wanda wrote....

>Alright, I'll bite......Graham, why are you now calling yourself "the
>Flasher" ? Have you taken up a new hobby that we were previously not
>aware of?

Yahhh I got a bite.  Patients IS a virtue.

I turned 65 on Dec 28th and now own a card the intitles me to bargain prices.
All I have to do is Flash it and I get reduced price. Wheeeeeeeee.
Move over Ray I have joined your ranks......


 >already have purchased some cutting tools,
>a 2.0 Sankaku To (v-gouge), a 4.5mm Maru
>To (u-gouge) & a teeny,tiny 1.0mm Maru To u-gouge for very fine lines. I
>*love* them!

Money well spent they will last you a life time.

Graham

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

From: "Ray Esposito" <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:02:20 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2568] Re: My BONNIE 

>Hi Ray.....guess what ? I too drive an old Bonneville. My is a  green 93'
>the one you  saw in all the commercials back a while.....sometimes it
>behaves like an 83'.

Mine is a blue '90.  Very clean with 71,000.  That's under 10,000 per year
so I hope to keep it for awhile.

>I have used some very lethal chemicals in the past while building boats and
>I tell you...between the flammable, the skin irritants and the
>I-will-fry-your-brain-if-you-do-me-inside  types....it could be deadly.  I
>will never work with that stuff again.


May I add to this discussion of hand cleaners?  I found a perfect cleaner
accidently while at one of the College of Santa Fe workshops.   Trying to
get etching ink off your hands can be a pain.  One day I grabbed some Bon
Ami.  That's a powered cleaner but unlike Comet or most of the others, there
are no abrasives in it.  After putting some in my hands and working up a
lather, I added some Ivory soap dishwashing liquid.  Together, the ink just
melted from my hands.  No abrasives and my hands felt silky smooth.  I now
use nothing else.

>So does anybody knows what it takes to setup & make functional one of those
>"live" web-cameras ?

Out of my league but I sure would love to know also.

Cheers

Ray

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

From: "Ray Esposito" <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:17:56 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2569] Re: Digital Art 

>Your input re digital art is great.
>Hey, Gary get up of the floor.
>
>Why do I say great.  It really is quite simple.
>The more bods we get to do digital art the more the market will be filled
>with the "stuff art" the less competion for us REAL printmakers.
>So I say to ye.....crank it out.

testy, testy, testy!!!!  Give the man a chance to get settled in first.

>Jake wrote....
>>And as far as critics and collectors go? They'll catch on one day.
>
>Yes, just the same way they caught on 25 years ago to reproduction art
>thinking it was going somewhere.  Now you can't give it away.  This has not
>happened to any of the works of say, W. J. Phillips original prints. Some
>of his small piece (5" x 7) are going for $2500.00 or Sibil Andrews 8 x10
>woodblocks for $3000.00 to $10.000.00


I agree with this but I still say we will just have to wait to see.  I am
sure a lot of printers thought Durer was an idiot and his prints would never
sell or be called art.  While I do not like it and think you are right on
here, I think only time will tell.

Cheers

Ray

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

From: "Ray Esposito" <brassring@brassring.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:34:06 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2570] Re: Flashing? Cutters,etc. 

Wanda wrote....
>>Alright, I'll bite......Graham, why are you now calling yourself "the
>>Flasher" ? Have you taken up a new hobby that we were previously not
>>aware of?

Your whole day has been made.   Like a spider, just waiting for someone to
wonder by.

>I turned 65 on Dec 28th and now own a card the intitles me to bargain prices.
>All I have to do is Flash it and I get reduced price. Wheeeeeeeee.
>Move over Ray I have joined your ranks......

What do you mean move over.  I'm still a kid.  I won't be 65 until....well
anyway, a long time after you.
No wonder you're an old grouch most of the time.  Picking on new members and
those poooor digital artists.  At least now they know what the problem is.
They also now know why I have been so sweet to deal with.  My reasoned
arguements and comments are by biased by being an old fart.  :-)>

Cheers

Ray

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:21:46 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2571] Waterless litho 

>I was referring to waterless lithos

It is a relatively new process of lithographs with out the use of water.
The hold out or resist is silicon.  To say more than that would not be
appropriate here. If you want to know more go to.

http://duke.usask.ca/~semenoff/

This Canadian invented it and .......

"My name is Nik Semenoff and you may have heard of the dry copier toner
process for lithography that I perfected in 1985. I demonstrated it at the
1990 Tamarind Symposium  in Albuquerque, NM."

I took a workshop this summer at Victoria University and got pretty excited
about the technique.

Graham

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:37:10 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2572] Re: Welcome; Digital art; Toxicity 

Ray wrote
>I think we have a smart aleck here.  We better keep an eye out on Greg as I
>think he might be just a litttttle sharper than some.
>:-)>

Ray
Well maybe you......but not me.  I got his number already.
:(<

Graham

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

From: Becky or Roger Ball <beckorro@inquo.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 21:29:29 -0700
Subject: [Baren 2573] image transfer and digital art 

Well, I must admit that I could never understand all the hubbub to get the
image on the wood.  I have always just used thin paper glued face up on the
block and cut right through it.  Yes, I know the image is backwards.  I just always
take that into account.  See the sketch of the latest image on my page.  Now,
I suppose those who want to get more detail on the block before removing the
paper might need to do it differently.  I just want to get the major outlines to
the block.  I add details later mostly by referrng to the drawing or the
other blocks.

Digital art?  As limited editions?  No thanks.  They're cool, you bet. They're
wiz-flippin'-bang, but so what.  Some of the glossies really look slick and just
like a MAGAZINE PICTURE!  To each his own.

Just a few more prints and I'll be in fine shape for this adventure, er, exchange.
I've gotten good consistency _finally_.  And you know it was stupid. Because of the
thickness of the paper I chose to place between the baren and the print,
I just needed to baren harder.  Duh!  But goodbye patchy-ness...

Joy to you,
- -Roger

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

From: Gary Luedtke <GLuedtke@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:20:05 -0500
Subject: [Baren 2574] Re: Digital Art 

Graham, 
You do not limit yourself to woodblock printing in your artistic
expression.     You may do a watercolor, or ink drawing, or who knows what
other media you may work in.   That's your choice.      Now there's the
digital media  to work in as well.    The Lyricism of Light.

There may not be much digital art out there which will bear up to
examination yet, but its day is coming.  Given a new media, someone will
sooner or later become a master of it and produce amazing results.
The public will make it popular, more artists will go into it, and it will
become as acceptable as woodblock printmaking, or mezzotint, or
lithography.   People will as staunchly defend it as a better art form than
some new innovation that comes later, as you are staunchly defending your
media now. 

A good lot of the public is only concerned with the image they see, not the
artistic details of its production.    That fact will make a market out
there for it.  

You enjoy the tools of your media.  They express you and you feel natural
with them.   The same will be said of future digital artists.   They will
see disadvantages to your way of doing art, and prefer their way.
They will become attached to their tools as well.   Is one way right, and
the other wrong?  Only if you are more concerned with the media than the
message.    The world of art has been expanded by the development of
another media.    I would not feel insecure about it.   You do what you do
well, and it's that which is appreciated by your collectors.   It is that
quality of producing images which appeal to people that will make a market
out there for all who can perform that magic in their respective media,
whether traditional or innovative. 

(I presume "the flasher" refers to your flashing lighthouse beam?)

Gary

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

From: Jean Eger <jeaneger@LanMinds.Com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 21:48:25 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2575] Re: Baren Digest V6 #402 

Ray,
Sounds like your wagoneer breakdown was a good excuse to buy a new car.
Once I had a used county sheriffs car I bought at auction.  I didn't know
it needed transmission fluid.  It broke down on the coast and I sold it for
$5 to a garage that wouldn't store it for me until I got the money to fix
it.  A few years later I took a car fixit course and found out what it
needed.  Life is cruel.

Welcome, Jake.  I too think the computer is a tool to produce prints.  Why
wait until it is an obsolete communication medium to produce art on it?
The best digital art these days is commercial art, just as the best art of
the past was for money (except Van Gogh, of course).  We need the museums
and colleges to canonize the digital art, and then we will worship at the
altar of the new icons  (please excuse the sarcasm, but all art is
religious, or at least cultural).  We need them to show us and tell us what
is really great, then when we see it again, we will have the "aha"
experience, the religious experience of deja vue, as if we were re-seeing
the Della Robia wreath of our childhood art class, at the traveling Vatican
exhibition.  Who knows, perhaps it will be the Adobe eye staring at us from
the "desktop" of our computers, or even the horse on the package.  (A poll
of teenagers showed that 90 percent agreed with the statement, "If it has a
horse in it, it must be a good picture.")  I don't think it will be the
Apple apple.

Forget the obsession with canceling the print.  That is a much overrated
ritual that has nothing to do with art work, or artistic value.  It is only
about monetary value, contrived by collectors to deprive artists of making
a few more shekels from a good image.

Well, with all these drastic, unscholarly, unsupported statemenets, I am
sure someone will pop up and reply to my diatribe with one of their own.
Back to looking at little sparks of originality and
picking up colored pencils off the floor.

Jean

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

From: Jean Eger <jeaneger@LanMinds.Com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 21:52:38 -0800
Subject: [Baren 2576] Re: Baren Digest V6 #402 

More...subsequent to using laquer thinner at the junior college to clean
silk screens...(outside, with blue gloves), I developed breast cancer,
carpal tunnel in both wrists and terrible skin problems on my fingers.  But
I don't know whether to attribute that to laquer thinner or menopause...or
smoking, bad genes, or just bad luck.  That was 10 years ago and I'm still
alive.

Jean

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

End of Baren Digest V6 #403
***************************