Baren Digest Wednesday, 16 July 2003 Volume 24 : Number 2306 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FurryPressII#aol.com Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:44:18 EDT Subject: [Baren 22233] printing quality not subject or cutting I was talking about printing quality not subject or cutting style. A poorly inked block is still a poorly inked block whether it was printed by a formschinder wood cut artist, a hanga printmaker or an impressionist. I was never talking about subject. A well printed block is a well printed block whether Albreck Durer, Eric Gill or any number of anon. commercial printers either Japanese or western printed it. I think it would be impossible for me to do an abstract exprssionist print even if I wanted to I still think what ever is in the print should be what we wanted in the print and not an uncontrolled accident If it is an uncontrolled accident no matter how wonderful how are you going to edition it? john "furrypress" center ps. the war/peace print should be in the mail tommorow as it is printed just waiting for the ink to dry. ------------------------------ From: Emkaygee#aol.com Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:44:38 EDT Subject: [Baren 22234] Re: Baren Digest V24 #2304 Ahhh! I go away for a couple of days and miss the beginning of a great discussion! Myron mentioned that Paul Jacoulet's prints seem'"decadent,' in the sense that they prettify a culture and tradition of which they are not an authentic expression.' I wondered about that as well. While the images are certainly compelling, they don't seem to speak as much to his culture as (for the most part) to the culture that is traditionally associated with the kind of printing in which his designs are executed. I see strong similarities to Gauguin, but I also see a similarity to Mary Cassatt in the mixing of flat pattern with the three dimensional figures. John also states, " From Paul Jacoulet you can learn craftsmanship at least even if you don't care for his subjects." Is my understanding correct that Jacoulet was the designer, but the actual printing was done by a master printer? I had believed that, but I may be wrong........ Hope everyone is having a terrific summer. I am truly missing my Baren Summit Compadres..... : ) Mary Green ------------------------------ From: Emkaygee#aol.com Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:05:50 EDT Subject: [Baren 22235] Re: Baren Digest V24 #2305 Hello Dave, I love your story so much that I have printed it out! Brilliantly done! We all look for something different which doesn't make anything less valuable, just different in it's emphasis. An excellently excecuted print can still appeal on the emotional level for which it was intended. Going to bed now.....falling asleep... Mary ------------------------------ From: Myron Turner Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:38:10 -0500 Subject: [Baren 22236] Re: Paul Jacoulet's Prints Dave, I realized when writing my brief comment on Gauguin vs Jacoulet that I was guilty of not defining my terms. I agree, there certainly is room in our lives for "decorative" art--without it our lives would be a lot poorer. But I don't think we have to assume that there is a necessary division between "decorative" and "political/philosophical/social' meaning. Art can 'mean' in different ways, and in more than one way at the same time. For instance, the works of Watteau and Fragonard are "decorative" but they have meaning as self-expressive works of particular sensibilities, as expressions of a particular age and set of social conditions, as works of aesthetic innovation, etc. So, I suppose you would have to ask yourself what or in what way do Jacoulet's prints "mean"? And when you say the you find the work often "creepy" and disturbing, you are talking about the meaning, a meaning which, I would suggest , has something in common with what I called "decadent". That is, the decorative is laid on top of a kind of unhealthy negativity. I also agree that sentimentality is a matter of taste---in some periods, as in the late 18th century, "sentiment" was a term of praise. But in speaking about art, we often mean something other than just sentiment or feeling when we use the term sentimentality--we mean that the feelings presented by the work are shallow, that it tries to elicit from us more feeling than it earns. (Some of you may remember about 10 to 15 years ago popular paintings of troops of young children with large, dark round eyes--highly stylized and decorative, meant to suggest haunted innocence but of course in a palatably saleable form.) For me, many of Jacoulet's prints are sentimental in this sense. As for authenticity , first, I don't think that a work which involves appropriation is necessarily "inauthentic". If I did, I'd have to throw out most of the art of the past 20 years that we think of as post-modern. As you suggest, Jacoulet, may have seen himself as continuing the Japanese tradition. But I still stand by my sense that Jacoulet prettified that tradition, and this put together with his sentimentality and "decadence" make for the inauthenticity which I find in the work, or for is "decadence" in the larger sense of an art which comes at the end of a tradition and emphasizes its formal and decorative elements at the expense of its other qualities and meanings. Myron At 08:56 AM 15/07/2003, you wrote: >Myron wrote: >>I personally can't agree. I know that a lot of people on this list are >>taken with Jacoulet. But, however well-made, they seem to me to be >>decorative, often sentimental, and "decadent', in the sense that they >>prettify a culture and tradition of which they are not an authentic >>expression. > >Interesting points Myron ... may I toss in a view on this? You put >'well-made' on the positive side of the equation, and then three other >words on the down side ... > >1) decorative I for one, would put this back over on the positive side! >I don't think that his prints were in any way intended to have any >political/philosophical/social 'meaning'. He conceived them as decorative >objects, and put them out into the world honestly to serve that function. >(I happen to share his view that woodblock prints can be 'purely' >decorative, although we are of course well aware that others feel >differently about it.) > >2) sentimental Not much to add on this ... it is positive or negative as >one's personal taste dictates ... > >3) decadent Jacoulet was a story-teller, both in his art and in his >life. A good example in his prints are his scenes of a Chinese court that >existed (in those days, anyway) only in his imagination. So I can't really >accuse him of 'prettifying a culture'. I suspect he would say "Thank you!" >to this charge. As to the 'not an authentic expression' point, this >touches on the whole concept of 'appropriation' - the idea that an artist >has no right to use images/ideas from a culture not his 'own'. But what >was Jacoulet's 'own' culture? He grew up in Japan from a very early age, >and although his passport was French, for him to illustrate scenes of >Paris would have been 'appropriation'! > >I certainly don't intend to defend Jacoulet much beyond this. I myself >don't care for many of his prints; I find a lot of them 'creepy' and >disturbing, and I'm sure that's a reflection of the man himself, whom I >suspect I would also have found creepy ... But I do enjoy those prints >which seem to me to be 'purely' decorative, and I very much enjoy them as >stunning technical achievements. > >Dave > ------------------------------ End of Baren Digest V24 #2306 *****************************