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

Baren Digest             Wednesday, 25 August 1999     Volume 08 : Number 675

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

From: April Vollmer & John Yamaguchi <jy6@columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:46:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Baren 5376] a common outlook 

Jack, as usual I am impressed with your erudition! That monkfish you found
is not a shark, three cheers for Linnaeus. I thought those bottom dwellers
were slimy, not rough? I bet the angel shark (Squatina squatina) is the
right one, not the monkfish. The Shark Trust page is very nice.

Like it or not, collaboration is very difficult for Americans. It is hard
to find what Dave calls "a common cultural background, a common outlook on
things in general (and the art in particular), and a common 'vision'"

I wonder if those things are harder to find in the contemporary world
generally, in Japan as well as in the west. It seems to me that Ukiyo-e was
a special period when people were in tune in just the right way to make
those perfect prints possible.

April Vollmer

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

From: Gary Luedtke <GLuedtke@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:40:19 -0400
Subject: [Baren 5377] Re: perception disorder 

Perception disorder returns.

Dave, I think you need to take some more shots of the "prize" close up, and
post them on the "silly site". Going back to look again, I indeed noticed
more.   How about this one,  the lady in your foot close-up has _six_ toes,
count 'em, six.   Did these guys ever make prints as puzzles, perhaps, like
the ones you see on occasion where hidden in the picture you need to find
disguised objects or mistakes?   

>The point is, I guess, that these ukiyo-e designers simply created an
>entire new world, and a new way of looking at things.  

I can see artistic license, Dave, but don't you think it's also possible
that these guys just screwed up? I think there are definitely aspects of
artistic license in proper scale for example, but then some things just
seem wrong.   Goofs. 

In your close-up of the lady holding fruit (?) a spot was missed on the
block where a background color was to go.   I don't think of that as
artistic license, just an oversight.

It amazes me that amidst the obvious pains they took with special effects,
these things would have gone unnoticed.   On the other hand that may just
be the reason why.   You can get so engrossed in an area of difficulty that
you no longer look at the details from the design standpoint, you are
concentrating on the effects.

I don't mean to seem negative about this, actually I think it's a good
exercise to inspect these things, to sharpen our perceptions maybe a little
about our own work.   Goodness knows I have made plenty of goofs myself.   

So, what about it?   How about some more pics?

Gary

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

From: David Bull <davebull@woodblock.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:37:34 +0900
Subject: [Baren 5378] Re: perception disorder 

Gary wrote:
> ... the lady in your foot close-up has _six_ toes,
> count 'em, six.  

Sorry Gary, that's not another toe ... that's the ball of her foot. 
(The picture Gary is talking about is at:
http://woodblock.com/forum/silly/closeup05.jpg)
Bizarre as it seems to us, that's just the way they drew feet.  I came
across this in my Hyakunin Isshu Series too ...


> In your close-up of the lady holding fruit (?) a spot was missed on the
> block where a background color was to go.   I don't think of that as
> artistic license, just an oversight.
(http://woodblock.com/forum/silly/closeup01.jpg)

You're correct here.  There is a tiny spot between the fourth and fifth
finger that should have been filled with background colour.  

Either it chipped off while the guy was clearing that block, and he just
shrugged, or else they he specifically decided to leave it off, to avoid
having a small 'island' of wood right next to a wide 'tsubushi' (The
water block had to be printed (twice) with major pressure.  That small
island would have tended to smear out into the open skin area ...)


> I can see artistic license, Dave, but don't you think it's also possible
> that these guys just screwed up? I think there are definitely aspects of
> artistic license in proper scale for example, but then some things just
> seem wrong.   Goofs.

These guys were just workmen - printers in the same sense as the guy
working in the 'Instant Print Shop' just around the corner from where
you live.  And I'm sure that the publisher was always on to them to 'get
it done' as quickly as possible.  


> It amazes me that amidst the obvious pains they took with special effects,
> these things would have gone unnoticed.

I maybe tended to exaggerate this when I posted the pics the other day. 
There is nothing on this print that would normally be described as a
'special effect'.  The beautiful embossing is purely a result of the
basic printing process - the paper in the coloured areas is flattened by
the pressure of the baren, while nearby untouched paper retains its full
depth.


> So, what about it?   How about some more pics?

OK, if you're up to it!  
http://woodblock.com/forum/silly/morecloseups.html

***

April wrote:
> It seems to me that Ukiyo-e was
> a special period when people were in tune in just the right way to make
> those perfect prints possible.

This is exactly the case ... and of course it 'explains' why there is no
such work being produced here these days.

Dave

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@home.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:54:07 -0700
Subject: [Baren 5379] Re: design, cut, print 

Jack wrote....
>Thanks Dave (and Gosho-san) for this information. Here in the west, the
>'monkfish' and the 'angel shark' are two quite different creatures, even
>though they look very similar. 

 You just have these handy in your bookmark file.....???
Most interesting indeed.

>My guess is that we are looking for the shark variety, which is actually more
>like a ray than the sharks we have been getting. At any rate, Graham and I
>have been getting the wrong fish altogether.

When you get that Dog Fish sample Jack, you will find the tooth quite
substantial.  The Fishermen around here have used the skin to sand the
paint/varnish of the boat, then repaint.

Graham

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@home.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:05:19 -0700
Subject: [Baren 5380] Re: perception disorder 

Gary wrote....
>I can see artistic license, Dave, but don't you think it's also possible
>that these guys just screwed up? I think there are definitely aspects of
>artistic license in proper scale for example, but then some things just
>seem wrong.   Goofs.

So where does this leave Picasso?

>I don't mean to seem negative about this, actually I think it's a good
>exercise to inspect these things, to sharpen our perceptions maybe a little
>about our own work.   Goodness knows I have made plenty of goofs myself.

Good Art takes risks  ie.   Pacasso, Matisse, Moore, Van Gogh..... and the
list goes on.

Graham

If there are no mistakes it is a sign nothing was done.

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

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@home.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:16:27 -0700
Subject: [Baren 5381] Re: Collaboration (To Cut or Not to Cut)... 

Welcome to the forum Brian.

Your imput is most welcome and an very interesting point of view.
Thanks for that.

I would be interested to know where you stand regarding using computers to
create fine art designs.

Regards,

Graham

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

From: Wanda Robertson <robertson@canby.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:25:56 -0700
Subject: [Baren 5382] Re: perception disorder 

Dave, your camera truly does a masterful job on those close-ups. They
look almost microscopic. Very interesting, being able to actually see
the fibers of the paper. And the compression of that paper by the
pigments & paste. The Sony Mavica FD-71 is holding up well in the
re-sale market on e-Bay also. Good camera! And great shots!

Wanda

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

From: Jack Reisland <reislandj001@hawaii.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:35:53 +0000
Subject: [Baren 5383] Re: design, cut, print 

Graham Scholes wrote:
>  You just have these handy in your bookmark file.....???
> Most interesting indeed.

Just a quick search on the Dogpile search site. My search for "dogfish" was a
little harder, I kept coming up with sites on the Seattle rock band.

> When you get that Dog Fish sample Jack, you will find the tooth quite
> substantial.  The Fishermen around here have used the skin to sand the
> paint/varnish of the boat, then repaint.

I'm looking forward to seeing it, and comparing it to both my shark skin, and
same'. You did mention that your dog fish didn't hold up to many brushings,
though, so I am hoping that we can find something better.

Jack

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

From: Jack Reisland <reislandj001@hawaii.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:24:25 +0000
Subject: [Baren 5386] Re: perception disorder 

Graham wrote:
> If there are no mistakes it is a sign nothing was done.

If there are no immediate mistakes it is a sign it was done by a master.

Jack

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

From: kim and paul <topcogs@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 04:02:03 +0000
Subject: [Baren 5387] Re: Baren Digest V8 #674 

I agree with Brian, today's economics are not the same as they were 220 
years ago, or even during Durer's time, when a master printer and the 
designer were two seperate occupations in Germany.  Acutally, prints 
during his time were used and distributed much in the same way a 
newspaper is today.  So what was once utilitarian is now called art.  
Americans tend to like efficiency and there is nothing efficient about 
art.
I'm glad to see a renewed interst in collabortive processes, however, at 
least here in the States.  Many artists are indeed isolated, especially 
after schooling, but it will be a long time before opportuinties outside 
of a class setting will be easily accessible to everyone who desires 
that kind of environment.  Like Dave said, it's a "Western Cult of 
Individuality".  On a larger scale, people of different backgrounds and 
cultures sometimes have no choice but to work together.  I'll use the 
cliched buzzword "global economny".

Kim Kaschimer Medina
Tucson, Arizona USA

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

From: Gary Luedtke <GLuedtke@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:52:24 -0400
Subject: [Baren 5389] Re: perception disorder

Graham wrote,
>So where does this leave Picasso?"

>Good Art takes risks  ie.   Pacasso, Matisse, Moore, Van Gogh..... and the
>list goes on."

>If there are no mistakes it is a sign nothing was done."

Picasso may have taken plenty of artistic license, but I don't recall
seeing "errors" showing in his work.

Yes, good art does take risks, but a good artist removes the evidence of
the error.   That's why you do sketches and preparatory work, to work those
things out.   If you cut a block, Graham, and the knife accidentally slices
out an area of a critical block, do you leave it as a sign that something
"was done"?  Or do you repair it or cut another one?

I might turn your last phrase around to say, "If there are mistakes showing
in your work, it _is_ a sign nothing was done."   Unfortunately.  

The _skill_ of the artist is proportionate to the lack of errors in his or
her work, is it not?  Would you buy a piece of art if it showed a lot of
mistakes or would you set it back as having been done by an amateur?
Artistic license is one thing, errors are another.

Gary

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

From: "Andy English" <a.english@virgin.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:50:43 +0100
Subject: [Baren 5390] Re:  

>A woodblock should be simple,
> expressively cut, in a few colors, and printed by the artist, and not
> necessarily well-printed, to maintain the integrity of the idea, the
> medium, and its expression.

I'm entering on an interesting journey here. Greg's remarks about printing
by the artist (above) struck a chord with me. In the world of engraving
there are some artists who print with such perfection that something seems
to be lacking from the finished work - a mechanical smoothness and little
evidence that a Human was involved at all in the process. Many of my
favourite engravers printed with a certain careless abandon and their mark
is in the work in the same way that the accidental thumbprint of a potter
can be an adornment to a bowl.

I've enjoyed your company over the past few weeks. I first found the baren
some time ago and then pulled away to return to my black and white world.
Now I'm back and absorbing your enthusiasm for coloured woodblock prints. I
like the idea of including some larger coloured pieces in my exhibitions
and perhaps this would be a good time to start to learn new skills. I
recently reviewed an exhibition of engravings in a Cambridge Museum and
found myself lingering longer over the excellent holding of Japanese prints
that they displayed. An interesting journey indeed!

Incidently, there seems to be an inexplicable (to me) hostility between
some workers in wood engraving and woodcut in Britain - end grain verses
side grain. I can't imagine what some of my colleagues will say if and when
I "come out" as a side grain printmaker!

Best wishes to you all, wherever you may be.

Andy

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

End of Baren Digest V8 #675
***************************