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

Baren Digest               Sunday, 23 April 2000       Volume 11 : Number 983

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

From: "Jeanne Norman Chase" <studiojnc@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 09:52:17 -0400
Subject: [Baren 9411] Re: NewsFeed, April 22 2000  

Thanks Jack for the information on the WPA project. I had often wondered
what happened to the art this project generated. You have answered a
question that I have long pondered.

Dave, the NewsFeed is great, thanks. Get to work and stop surfing on E Bay.
tsk, tsk.

Jeanne N.

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

From: Gayle Wohlken <blueman@pantek.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 09:55:15 -0400
Subject: [Baren 9412] Re: Baren Digest V11 #982 

I'm going to have to read my digest when I get back on Monday, but I
thought you people might be interested to know that the little tool I
picked up at the flea market and have been trying to sharpen to use on
wood is actually a screwdriver!!!!!!! Egads.

Gayle

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

From: Cucamongie@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 10:01:54 EDT
Subject: [Baren 9413] Matthew's project etc 

Hi all, April & I have been busy as you can see, and next weekend we will be 
demonstrating hanga at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden from 1-5pm for anyone 
interested who's in the area.
Matthew, your project sounds great!!  I think printmaking can be used in a 
million ways and your idea is very creative, you'll have to post pictures on 
line as it progresses, I'm sure a number of us would love to see.  Great for 
you to push this medium!
Julio, as to the pattern theme, it seemed like a good one for a 2-person show 
for April & me as that is something that we both explore and utilize in a 
great deal of our work, and I think the show looks good.  Although our styles 
are different, there are unifying elements and we seem to complement each 
other well.  Hanga (and woodblock printing in general) really lends itself to 
using pattern in various ways.
I also echo April's sentiments, Julio should get some more money, I'm sure he 
laid out a bundle, not to mention the hours of his valuable time, to put the 
Skokie show together, perhaps everyone who had prints up in the show could 
send him something - what do people think about this & what would be a 
reasonable amount?
best wishes to all,
Sarah

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

From: Gary Luedtke <GLuedtke@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:03:47 -0400
Subject: [Baren 9414] Graham's "Final Word", Once Again

Graham,  old adversary,  you were obviously looking for a response from me
again, on the digital theme, so as not to disappoint you,  here's my
American two cents worth.   I hope I have done a better job of clarifying
my thoughts because you are still as hard-headed as Canadian Granite.

_Any media_ can be raised to the level of art by the creativity and
development of the artist. 

Even digital art.    If you are not up to the challenge, step aside and
don't say there's nothing down that road just because it didn't go anywhere
for you.  This is a trail still being blazed.  There are others who will
face the challenge with much more inspiration and creativity who will be
coming to our attention before too much longer, I believe.   

And "sofa art".    Graham, Graham, Graham.    We all have art we don't
like, so I suppose it's only natural to demean another media which we don't
like as representative of "sofa art".   But, Graham, everyone's sofa is
different.   I wonder now, just where many of your prints end up being
hung?  : )

Gary
KC
USA

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

From: B Mason <bemason@concentric.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 09:59:13 -0700
Subject: [Baren 9416] digital art 

Gary and Graham,
You know, this digital art isn't going away, so we have to decide what
is really art. Here is my humble 2 cents worth.
We have been going round and round in print circles for a long time,
trying to decide if this stuff meets with everyone's approval. I think
that if an artist is competant enough to understand photoshop and make
amazing art, then that is their art. Why is a computer any less a tool
than a pencil? The sticky wicket gets into the reproduction of these
pieces and I see no easy answer to this. If an artist is concerned about
his reputation, as most are, they print these images on the best
equipment available using the best paper and they limit them to a few.
Perhaps 50 copies, possibly 75. True the labor is less in the printing
stage, but enormous in the making stage. Having suffered through those
photoshop classes, I understand that if you used this program every day
for 10 years you would still not use all it could do.
Artists of the old school will probably never think this is "real art"
but I think any tool an artist uses can make real art, and art made on a
computer, not a copy of art from another media and reproduced as a
giclee print, but creqted as computer art is an artist's real art work
and should be respected as such.
This is the future, some may not like it, but here it is. A few years
ago monotypes were not accepted into shows and look what has happened.
Just so, there will be shows of digital art.
The whole key here is educating the public, which we have always tried
to do with varing degrees of success and will keep on doing with our
best efforts.
Lets hear what others think,  can we make room for digital art as real
art?
Barbara

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

From: "Philip Smith" <smithart@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 11:38:58 -0700
Subject: [Baren 9417] Re: digital art 

Barbara,...I remember back when you couldn't enter alot of painting shows if
your medium was acrylic, it had to be oil. Things have changed in this
area,..........however a "print" that is a "Picture of a Picture" is not a
print in my humble opinion.
Giclee is still a method of reproduction,.....paint a picture, have a giclee
made of it and it's a "print"? I don't think so. But, the giclee people want
you to think of digital reproduction as an original print. Big bucks
invested in their equipment!
Then we can say print 10,000 copies offset,....these are prints? Again, I
don't think so! So we are down to numbers. IOne copy printed offset is a
print and 10,000 are not????? No, if it's a picture of a picture, reproduced
through some mechanical means and not from an original plate, created by an
artist,...Then it's out of the realm of original prints. You are then into
reproductions, like a print shop!
One day maybe when woodcuts are referred to as a lost  art and pixels are
debated as we do with hanga today and the word "prints" will take on a whole
new definition. I hope not!

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

From: Gary Luedtke <GLuedtke@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 15:39:36 -0400
Subject: [Baren 9418] Re: digital art

Let's try to clarify this,

There is the creation of art, and there is it's reproduction.   Hiroshige
painted the picture, the carvers and printers reproduced that picture in
"prints" which are multiples, whether it's 10 or 10,000.

>however a "print" that is a "Picture of a Picture" is not a print in my humble opinion.

Are Hiroshige's prints then, not "prints"?   His originals were
watercolors, weren't they?  To my knowledge Hiroshige never made a print
himself.   Yet he is acknowledged as a print master.

"Giclee is still a method of reproduction,.....paint a picture, have a
giclee made of it and it's a "print"? I don't think so.

But it is a print.   It is a Giclee print.  One method of multiplying an
original image by another means of reproduction.   You may have your
preference of woodblock reproduction over Giclee reproduction because of
the handmade reproduction techniques and the variations that can result,
but they are still reproductions.   

> But, the giclee people want you to think of digital reproduction as an
>original print. Big bucks invested in their equipment!  Then we can say print 
>10,000 copies offset,....these are prints? Again, I don't think so! So we are down to 
>numbers

These reproductive methods are all about numbers.   Why do you suppose they
are _reproducing_ them?  The only "original" part of it was it's
conception.   You're just quibbling about how to clone it.

Obviously there are qualities that each method of reproduction can offer.  
Everyone has their preferences, and while ours is woodblock prints, that is
not the only valid method.   Depends how critical to you is the fact that
it is hand made or machine made.   Is the image the most important thing to
you, or the method by which it is presented?   That is, and always will be,
personal preference.   

I have worked the last few years primarily on the computer to produce my
prints.   I have also had several carved and printed by others as woodblock
prints.   I am doing so now.   When I print off one of my "prints" from the
computer, I can appreciate it as an image, and also because of the fine
printing my printer does.   Why then do I also have prints made as
woodblock prints?   Because there are qualities in_that_ method of
reproduction which I value also, and let me tell you it is considerably
more expensive than just running them off my computer ever would be.   I
value those qualities, but those are qualities in the method of _
reproduction_ of the image, rather than in the creation of that image. 
Digital art is a very valid method of creation, it is just because it can
only be printed by machine that it does not seem up to par yet by many
standards.   

I too have a problem with anything reproduced as being claimed as original,
or by the hand of the artist. It is simply a buyer beware situation.   If
you know how something was reproduced, you are in a better position to
assess its true value.   Then, if you want it, you buy it.   If you want to
spend $500 for one of Graham's woodblock prints that's great.   If however
you don't quite have that amount of money to spend, and he'll sell you a
Giclee version for $25, maybe that will be satisfactory to you because you
just really like the image, not necessarily care how he did it in
woodblock.   As long as no deception is practiced, there's nothing wrong
with that.   Eh,  Graham?  : )   Now,  where to hang that???  

   X
 [----]  =

Gary

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

From: Jack Reisland <reislandj001@hawaii.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 10:35:20 -1000
Subject: [Baren 9419] Re: digital art 

Oh No! Not the digital debate again!
    Before we can argue as to whether something is or is not art, we had
better agree to a common definition of "art", and that's pretty
slippery. Hiroshige's prints were not purchased and collected so much as
art at the time they were printed. Photography had (and still is having)
a hell of a time being accepted as art. Is a really bad painting art,
and a reproduction of a master work not art?
    For my part, I find the word "art" much too ambiguous and loaded
with personal preferences and biases to be of any use.  Instead of
starting the same old "is it art if it's digital?" argument again, let's
be more honest about it. It seems to really come down to "I'm a
woodblock printer, and I don't think competition from digital art is
fair" vs. "I make digital images, and I don't like someone telling me
what I do is invalid". "Art" is mere posturing. Instead of worrying
about whether yours or the other guys stuff is art, just keep cutting
(or clicking!) and printing images that you believe in. Whether you made
art or not is immaterial. Whether you become a better person, or helped
others in some way because of the work you did is what matters, at least
in my opinion.

Jack
Aiea, Hawaii

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

From: "pwalls1234" <pwalls1234@i-55.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:57:31 -0500
Subject: [Baren 9423] Re: digital art is art if it is created as such 

Yes, I too have a tough time accepting a print(giclee) of a painting or
anything else as an original piece of art/

I truly believe in artistic intent and whether or not one has used the
medium intertwined with the creative process.  I made a number of prints,
Iris and Rainbo, a few years back and have not returned there but still work
on a few digital pieces that may or may not come to complete states.  They
are PRINTS and I treat them as such.   What else is there to say... . . . .
. . . .

Four of the prints on the left of the following page are digital prints of
mine, if anyone wishes to see : http://www.firsttree.com/peter_walls_two.htm

p. walls
baton rouge

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

From: Wanda <robertson@canby.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:29:57 -0700
Subject: [Baren 9425] Re: digital art is art if it is created as such

Intriguing images, Pete! Enjoyed looking at them.  *But*, I _really_ enjoyed
looking at the woodcuts!  Especially the woodcut, "Multiple Views". And isn't
that what art comes down to? Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.

Your stuff sure looks like art to me!

Graham, just have Marnie hold your hands down when they ask for volunteers!
Like you need another job......

Wanda


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

From: "Gregory D. Valentine" <gvalen@linfield.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 9426] computer art 

Each medium is different: the bite of the plate, the way the ink holds,
the texture of the paper.  The subtle difference even between like
processes, say, etching and engraving.

I've spent a fair amount of time poking pixels, not digitizing a drawing,
and if the cathode ray tube isn't the medium of our time, what is?

But prints? From a computer to an ink jet, there's nothing appealing to me
about the process, no pleasure holding such a paper, it's all image, no 
surface.  The medium is the message.  Though I once saw art off a
photocopier...

Greg Valentine

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

From: B Mason <bemason@concentric.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:09:40 -0700
Subject: [Baren 9427] computer art 

Greg,
I tend to agree, it just isn't the same is it? My plan is to eventually
make color separations of my work and make plates of the separations.
Hmmmmm. where is this? somewhere in the middle.
Barbara

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

From: "Jean Eger" <jeaneger@LanMinds.Com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 19:14:31 -0700
Subject: [Baren 9428] Re:   Baren Digest V11 #981 

 Oh Graham, really......

You are always using the computer for your art, and for publicizing your art
works and giving us poor souls much needed information by way of computer.

The design abilities you use in constructing your web site is art.

If you saw April's computer prints, I think you would consider them
printmaking.  What other art media would you classify it in?  Painting?
Sculpture?  Folk art?  It is obviously printmaking.

Is computer art all FINE art?  Obviously not.  Most of it is design.  Some
of it is garbage.  Some of it is reproductions.

If you make a drawing or a painting which is a study for a woodcut, is that
art?  Then is the print merely a reproduction of the drawing or the
painting?

Graham, all these printmaking techniques were at one time mass communication
techniques.  The same for the computer.  I think you are just trying to
protect the printmaking market.    It's not about art, it's about money.
You may not like the competition, but there it is.

By the way, who is going to your workshop this summer?  I know Dave is, and
I think John Amoss is, but what other printmaking superstars do you have
attending this year?  Maybe my checkbook can handle it next year after I've
been working for awhile, if you are still speaking to me.

Jean Eger

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

From: "Jean Eger" <jeaneger@LanMinds.Com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 19:15:50 -0700
Subject: [Baren 9429] Re:   Baren Digest V11 #981 

Graham got me so agitated that I forgot to thank April for the picture.
http://aprilvollmer.com/images/kala.html
THanks April.

Jean Eger

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

From: Chris BeGell <cbegell@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 19:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 9430] Re: digital art 

Hi, I'm new to this so if it doesn't go where it is
supposed to, please forgive me. I had made up my mind
to keep quiet for a while and just observe, but I have
to comment on this subject of prints and reproduction
methods. I admit I don't know exactly what a giclee
is, but I assume it's some form of digital
reproduction. 

One thing everyone seems to be missing in their
arguments is the question of craftsmanship. The level
of skill required to make a reproduction, such as a
woodcut, is much greater than simply scanning an
image. 

For my own practical purposes, I consider anything
experimental whithin a given discipline "art", and
practicing traditional methods to perfection a
"craft".
And by the way, I consider myself a "hack".

Christopher 

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

From: "Maria Arango" <maria@mariarango.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:49:10 -0700
Subject: [Baren 9431] nondigital content, just cuttin' and printin' 

Lynita, I agree with your price range being a factor in moving those prints.
That and your beautiful images, of course!
I also found that being energetic and loving your work helps 'move' people
into listening to your art better.

Some of the images that I have been working on can now be seen.

If you are into tiny landscapes of desertlands (Dave, ask Sadako if she
remembers any of this scenery):
http://www.printmakingstudio.com/galleries/gallery4/gallery4.html

If you like desert gardens (the flowering yuccas are new):
http://www.printmakingstudio.com/galleries/gallery10/gallery10.html

Tiny woodpeople jumping around merrily:
http://www.printmakingstudio.com/outwood/owgallery3.html

My motivation for making a few of these smaller prints quickly was this: I
wanted to work out some ideas for some larger (about 18" x 24" or so)
landscapes that I plan on doing "in situ." In order to do this, I wanted to
work out some depth issues, some light and dark issues, and most of all,
practice with my newly acquired 1mm-3mm knives and chisels. I thought about
sketching, but who wants to draw when you can cut!?
So I worked out from memory right on the block with sumi ink; two hikes and
some reference photos later, these were the result.
On the woodpeople prints, I really just wanted to capture the energy of the
art festival, and I cut those while sitting at my booth. Children ran around
and jumped on and off these planter boxes in the site, reminding me of tiny
lepricons or some playful forest people. I wish the digital camera did a
better job at capturing the copper and gold of those metallic inks, because
they actually look "gilded" on the paper (comment from my friend
Monster-Daryl, who just had a baby boy with buffed arms suitable for baren
printing).

I have been updating and revising my website with some shopping cart
features, so everything is a little shaky and under construction right now.
Let me know if you find broken links anywheres.

Health to all,
Maria

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

End of Baren Digest V11 #983
****************************