Baren Digest               Thursday, 17 July 2003       Volume 24 : Number 2307


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

From: David Bull <davebull#woodblock.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:23:53 +0900
Subject: [Baren 22237] Re: Paul Jacoulet's Prints 

Myron wrote:

> ... the inauthenticity which I find in the work, or for its "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, I think this is a much more telling criticism of Jacoulet's work, 
and one that I wouldn't even attempt to counter. By the time Jacoulet 
came along, 'ukiyo-e' was stone-cold dead (I'm speaking of the artistic 
genre, not the technique of making prints by woodblock). But he 
obviously felt that it was worth another kick at the cat, and spent his 
life trying - mostly without success during his lifetime - to carve out 
a position as the 'Utamaro' of his day.

But work coming at the end of a long tradition, and which was 
'artificially' produced - in the sense of not having any honest base in 
contemporary social activity - was indeed decadent, and in a sense, 
pointless.

This leaves me with very mixed feelings about Jacoulet; on the one hand 
I admire him immensely, for the spectacularly high standards of 
production he set himself and his craftsmen, for his honesty in 
crediting those men with their names on every print(!), and for his 
total refusal to compromise in any aspect of his work or life.    But if 
only the stuff wasn't so .... may I use that word again? ... creepy!

Dave


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

From: ArtfulCarol#aol.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:37:27 EDT
Subject: [Baren 22238] Freshness or Design? 

This relates to Baren exchanges which I have been enjoying  about the 
comparitive merits of technique and content in woodblock printing.

A question was asked  of the artist Edgar Whitney during a workshop I was 
attending:  "Which is more important-- freshness or design?"  He started, "Which 
is more important--virginity or ecstasy?"  What followed was his tour de force 
response.

Knowing that every workshop experience included entertaining advice, 
witticisms, and philosophers' quotes, by chance that day I had asked for permission 
from Whitney to tape his lesson. Somewhere in my art archives there is a tape of 
Edgar Whitney's saved gem.

IMHO--"It all depends" or as Robert Blackburn said, "Gut feeling"

   : -)
Carol L.

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

From: John and Michelle Morrell <jmmorrell#gci.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:31:44 -0800
Subject: [Baren 22239] Planning vs. spontaneity 

John Center recently wrote:

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--

Years ago I remember attending some lecture where the (art history?)
instructor claimed there were two ways of going about art.  One way was to
have everything in mind ahead of execution.  Every detail executed was
exactly as planned.  The other way was spontaneous, allowing the medium to
have a say in the final outcome, and creating while executing.  The finished
piece may or may not resemble what you originally had in mind.

Some may argue that spontaneous art is more creative than pre-planned art.
Others may argue that spontaneous art is just luck and is a lack of true
skill.   It may or may not be appropriate for illustration purposes,
although it is obviously editioned routinely in photolithographic
reproductions.

I have nothing against improvising and taking advantage of "happy
accidents."  I only wish I were better at it!

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
Michelle Morrell
jmmorrell#gci.net
MichelleMorrell.com
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^



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

From: b.patera#att.net
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:56:46 +0000
Subject: [Baren 22240] Re: Paul Jacoulet's Prints 

This is an interesting discussion. I, along with Myron, Gayle, and Sherri do 
not like Jacoulet's prints. They would never hang on my walls.

Yes, they are decorative and technically well done but .... they have no soul! 
I find nothing of the artist in those prints....they seem to be composites of 
other's existing but poorly understood work.

Barbara P.

> 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
> >
> ></blockquote></x-html>

> 


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

From: Wanda <robertson#canby.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:39:53 -0700
Subject: [Baren 22241] Re: Paul Jacoulet's Prints 

Hmmm....I must disagree.  I find Jacoulet's prints to be beautiful, in
design, & color & execution.  The fact that he not only acknowledged the
cutters & printers - but insisted they be recorded on the works is a credit
to his character.

I think his prints are not at all soul-less, I feel they represent his
struggle in his time, not only of being homosexual - but being non-Japanese
living & working in Japanese society & trying to succeed in one of the
'dead' arts.  I admire that tenacity and his intestinal fortitude in even
trying.  Some of his prints are credited with showing the 'real' people in
some populations - in a more realistic way than other artists who carried
around costumes for the natives to wear while being depicted.

I don't think all of his work is of this caliber - but some of it is really
wonderful.  Not all of Degas work is top-notch either.  I saw some crappy
(Ha, IMHO, that is) Degas' work in the Frick in NY.

While I admire Gaugain's work, but much differently, I can't see the
comparison.  And if you want to criticize lifestyle - I think Gaugain was a
*pig*.  

If anyone has a Jacoulet they don't want to hang on their wall, please send
it to me - I will happily hang it there with my baren collections.

Wanda

on 7/16/03 10:56 AM, b.patera#att.net at b.patera#att.net wrote:


> This is an interesting discussion. I, along with Myron, Gayle, and Sherri do
> not like Jacoulet's prints. They would never hang on my walls.
> 
> Yes, they are decorative and technically well done but .... they have no soul!
> I find nothing of the artist in those prints....they seem to be composites of
> other's existing but poorly understood work.

<snip>

>> 
>> 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


<snip>

>>> 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




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

From: "Joseph Sheridan" <sheridanpsm#msn.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:46:49 -0400
Subject: [Baren 22242] Re: Paul Jacoulet's Prints 



I think Jacoulet and his team pushed the technical envelope in the printi
ng process. I can only imagine the discipline that was upheld throughout 
the process. 
I do think,, while they were setting such high technical standards, a dec
adence did slip in and some soul was lost. In some prints the subject mat
ter became servant to the technique.  
Once while in a gallery while looking at some Jacoulet prints, a salesman
 approached and gave me some insightful information and pointed out some 
features in the prints. He LOVED the prints. I looked at the man.. and th
e thought came to me that he was a homosexual. I looked at the prints aga
in and yes.. that "creepy" feeling was there.. but now I thought I knew w
hy. (I did not know Jacoulet was a homosexual, thank you Wanda, but I had
 surmised so.)  I see a sensuality, or an underlying erotic tone in his w
ork that I cant relate to. But when I can look past that.. the prints are
 indeed beautiful and erotic.   
AS to Gauguin.. I can see beauty in his work even though I have to look p
ast the rough burlap he sometimes painted on or the crudeness of some of 
his print work.
Decorative art.. well there is a can of worms. Putting my can opener down
 ...

What a great forum.. thanks for all the insightful   reading

Joe 



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

From: "marilynn smih" <marilynnsmih#hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:00:52 -0700
Subject: [Baren 22243] Re: Baren Digest V24 #2306 

To watch a master printer, a David Bull, a John Center, work is to know 
these men create from their hearts and their work does not lack soul.  It is 
as a conductor putting together a great masters work, interpreting it in 
their way.  It is merely different when the creator of the design interprets 
his own work.  Some times the artists work can be more crude, but still 
posseses its own beauty.  My hat is off to the true craftsman who can make a 
design sparkle with beauty.
Marilynn


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

From: Julio.Rodriguez#walgreens.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:16:42 -0500
Subject: [Baren 22244] Re: Paul Jacoulet's Prints 

I like this one print by Jacoulet, is very moving and shows feelings...
http://www.hanga.com/viewimage.cfm?ID=3399

The best place to look at ALL (or most ) of Jacoulet prints is at 
hanga.com
http://www.hanga.com/prints.cfm?ID=28

There is yet another exploratory writeup on Jacoulet at:
http://pages.makeashop.com/7531/PictPage/1921005329.html

and at:

http://pages.makeashop.com/7531/PictPage/1921785505.html

These writeups go more in depth into the criticisms and pecularities of 
Jacoulet's work as well as the inspirations/dedications behind these 
prints.

I think the writer says it best:

"A Jacoulet print could never be mistaken for the work of any other 
artist."

Here is a photo of Jacoulet....no date available

http://www.cas.gmu.edu/~tobi/images/jacoulet3.jpg
 thanks....Julio 

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

From: "Jeanne N. Chase" <studiojnc#prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:27:47 -0400
Subject: [Baren 22245] Jacoulet

Would someone please send me Jacoulets URL. I somehow misplaced the e 
mail with the information.
With all of this discussion going on I would like to view his work as 
the e mail disappeared in outer space.
Great discussion.

Jeanne N.

PS. I find nothing wrong with decorative art. Look at some of the works 
of Gustav Klimt, Rossetti and the Art Nouveau artists. They were quite 
beautiful and moved me with there beauty. Now I want to see some of 
Jacoulets work and see for myself.

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

From: "Jeanne N. Chase" <studiojnc#prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 16:29:15 -0400
Subject: [Baren 22246] Re: Paul Jacoulet's Prints 

Thanks Julio

As I was writing my message, your e mail just came through.

Jeanne



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

From: G Wohlken <blueman#pantek.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:14:46 -0400
Subject: [Baren 22247] Jacoulet's creepiness and they can hang on my wall 

Barbara Patera said:


>This is an interesting discussion. I, along with Myron, Gayle, and Sherri do 
>not like Jacoulet's prints. They would never hang on my walls.
>



Just to set the record straight, I didn't say anything against Jacoulet. 
 You must be thinking of someone else, Barbara.    Sorry, but I like his 
work, including the creepiness.    Joe, I think you may be right about 
the underlying erotic feeling in the prints.  It doesn't bother me at 
all, and I find myself rather drawn to them for that reason.  I can't 
get over those faces.  

Gayle



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

From: David Bull <davebull#woodblock.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:11:43 +0900
Subject: [Baren 22248] World's largest woodblock print ... 

Here's a clipping and photo from my morning newspaper:

***

Memorial for a Master

Artists prepare a giant woodblock print Wednesday for its unveiling in 
Aomori on Saturday. The 4.8-meter x 13.2-meter print titled "Aoi more 
kara hanatsu" (Let loose from the green forest), was made by local 
citizens in honor of the late Shiko Munakata, a famed Aomori printmaker 
who would have turned 100 on Saturday. The organizers believe it is the 
largest woodblock print in the world, and are considering contacting the 
Guinness Book of Records

Photo at:
http://barenforum.org/temporary/giantprint.jpg

***

George, this is up in your territory ... are you part of this project?

Dave


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

From: Barbara Mason <barbaramason45#yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 22249] large prints 



Artists prepare a giant woodblock print Wednesday for its unveiling in 
Aomori on Saturday. The 4.8-meter x 13.2-meter print titled "Aoi more 
kara hanatsu" (Let loose from the green forest), was made by local 
citizens in honor of the late Shiko Munakata, a famed Aomori printmaker 
who would have turned 100 on Saturday. The organizers believe it is the 
largest woodblock print in the world, and are considering contacting 
the Guinness Book of Records
 
 

Maria, 
Here is a real challenge for you...get that steam roller out and go for this record!
 
What a great print! I cannot imagine how they ever printed this, is it one sheet of paper? 
I guess they just got down on top of the block and let the baren fly.
 
I have seen large prints, 3x6' but nothing like this. The ones I saw were by Portland artist Brian Shannon and printed in oil. He said he just got on top of the block and printed them by hand. They were pretty amazing. 
 
We did see a steam roller print a 4'x8' print at SGC a couple of years ago in Austin, Texas. The prints came out pretty well, a lot better than I expected. They had carved plywood and inked them with house painting rollers and oil based ink and then they did use a steam roller, with a large sheet of rubber between the paper and the steam roller. I think April and Shireen also saw this happen so maybe their memories are better than mine, but I am pretty sure it was oil based ink.
Best to all,
Barbara
 


End of Baren Digest V24 #2307
*****************************