Baren Digest                Friday, 25 July 2003        Volume 24 : Number 2316


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

From: Mike Lyon <mikelyon#mlyon.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:30:26 -0500
Subject: [Baren 22327] Re: contemporary gallery 


>Almost forgot, check out the "Yuki Rei" barens at:
>http://yoseido.safeshopper.com/163/cat163.htm



They're expensive, but very good tools!  I bought one and have used it 
during several prints -- and love it -- it is designed especially for 
oil-based printing and is more than powerful enough to bruise both paper 
and block if you lay into it -- huge mechanical advantage!

- -- Mike


Mike Lyon
mailto:mikelyon#mlyon.com
http://www.mlyon.com  
------------------------------

From: Mike Lyon <mikelyon#mlyon.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:32:16 -0500
Subject: [Baren 22328] Re: contemporary gallery 

At 09:36 AM 7/24/2003 +0900, David Bull wrote:

>What _is_ a reasonable price for a woodblock print?


Same as for ANY other item-of-commerce in our current free-market 
economy!  Whatever the market will bear!  ...Duh!  :-)

- -- Mike


Mike Lyon
mailto:mikelyon#mlyon.com
http://www.mlyon.com  

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

From: "Bill H. Ritchie, Jr." <ritchie#seanet.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:04:10 -0700
Subject: [Baren 22329] Re: Baren Digest V24 #2314 Van Gelder Paper 

Florine, regarding that Van Gelder paper, I know a little bit about it.

When I used it it was made in Holland by Van Gelder Zonen (Sons). But that's
a big "commercial" company, I thought. They made one for copperplate etching
for awhile, very thick, short fiber and - someone informed me - little rag
content.

It was introduced to me by Rolf Nesch. He made incredible plates out of wire
and metal collage-like that would chew up most papers and the press blankets
too. Van Gelder Zonen is like blotter paper and resisted puncturing and
that's why he used it.

We (in Seattle) imported several hundred pounds of it for awhile, and then
we learned VGZ was discontinuing production.

Like most big mills, they probably make many varieties of paper, from
handwriting to specialty coated papers, etc.

I hope this helps a tiny bit.

Professional Career Site: www.seanet.com/~ritchie
First Emeralda Portal Site: www.artsport.com
Snail Mail: 500 Aloha #105, Seattle 98109
e-mail: ritchie#seanet.com


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

From: "Maria Arango" <maria#mariarango.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:26:58 -0700
Subject: [Baren 22330] Re: pricing 


I guess I would have to chime in here and agree with both Dave and Mike on
the "reasonable" price issue. Yes, IMHO those prices on that gallery are
ridiculous, and yes, Mike, (so tough for artists to understand) our
delightful and precious "product" will sell for whatever the market will
bear. Or is there an intrinsic value attached to an original print?

However, the market for art "e mobile, cual piuma al vento" and really
depends on so many factors that those who figure it out...well, own
Sotheby's! If art is worth what the market will bear, how do we find out
what that is?

First thing artists have to realize, and I'm speaking of those artists that
strive to eat from sales of their art, is that supply far exceeds demand.
Take that to the level of printmakers and...heck, there is NO demand!!! At
least not for prints made by unknown artists, aka, me.

Second thing we realize once we start selling our prints is that the market
changes like I change socks in the summertime. Rather than try to
generalize, I will just speak in my experience. The past three and a half
delicious years as a full-time artist, I have seen close to 3,000 prints go
to new homes. Most of those have been sold direct to the public, defined as
a variety of folk from the "look ma!, a nice peechure for my wall!" to
fairly sophisticated collectors who knowingly and overtly set out to "rip me
off" while I was still unknown.

The market, defined as the general public, will pay a certain amount for an
original print, signed and numbered, limited edition (in the US). Don't kid
yourself and start on the bit that the public doesn't know what an original
print is, they know. To that point, original prints have a minimum intrinsic
value...but also a maximum. Prints are the poor cousin of paintings and
every other "one of a kind" art work out there and always will be in the
eyes of the entire art world. To complicate things further, the Scottsdale
Arizona market (for example) will gobble up Maria's prints like they're
going out of style and accuse Maria of "giving them away." The Las Vegas
Nevada market will walk into the same booth and walk out shaking their heads
and accuse Maria of being "way overpriced." The California Bay Area market
won't buy anything priced _under_ $300, a fact which a savvy artist can
quickly oblige with the deft stroke of a pen on the price tag. Is there an
intrinsic value attached to art? Or is art worth what the market will bear?
What market? What bear? oh my...

Okay, so not everyone wants to brave the elements and toss their art around
in a trailer and travel the world like a gipsy, I understand that
(especially after a rainy festival). So there are galleries, a completely
different market. The gallery market will sell the same print I sell
public-direct for three times the amount. I should qualify "will sell" and
perhaps say "would sell" because fact is if artists like me had to live on
what they make off gallery sales...we wouldn't--live, that is. I call them
art graveyards, waiting and waiting for that sophisticated collector to show
up while printmakers eat rice and beans. So do I wait for my galleries to
sell my 16 x 20's at $400 for months and months or do I pull them and sell
30 of them for $200 at the next Scottsdale festival...hmmm...
The print dealer market is even more exclusive, here are a group of well
meaning folk that have reduced their buying market to the few and proud
print collectors--exclusively. I have a bucket full of prints going on for
sale at Sotheby's online through a print dealer, for a year now, and have
had one sale. ONE SALE!
Artists continually give all these gallery and print markets FREE PRODUCT,
in some cases PAYING MONEY to proudly show off our product in places that
can't make a sale while spending nothing on their inventory? and still
artists can starve waiting for THE SALE? Ridiculous. If my product cost me
zero I'd be looking for a few hundred acres in the cool high country by now.
The market obviously does not bear what some galleries ask for original
prints and it is pointless for the artist that wants to make a living to
model their pricing scheme after them.

Original prints will sell for $60 and they will sell for $6000, but the
market for the latter is so small that artists can wait a lifetime before
selling their precious gems for that much. The market, in this case, will
bear an astounding range, but the artist wishing to make a living NOW, is
wise to make their prints reasonable for the pockets of their particular
market...and live happily ever after.

Happy trails...
Maria

<||><||><||><||><||><||><||>
Maria Arango
maria#mariarango.com
Las Vegas Nevada USA
http://www.1000woodcuts.com
<||><||><||><||><||><||><||>


> At 09:36 AM 7/24/2003 +0900, David Bull wrote:

> >What _is_ a reasonable price for a woodblock print?

>
> Same as for ANY other item-of-commerce in our current free-market
> economy!  Whatever the market will bear!  ...Duh!  :-)
>
> -- Mike
>
>
> Mike Lyon
> mailto:mikelyon#mlyon.com
> http://www.mlyon.com




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

From: Barbara Mason <barbaramason45#yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 22331] prices and sophistication 

>Barbara
>I hope you will find my work not unsophisticated when it will
>appear at the yoseido page  Yoseido is the gallery, that will
>hold my show in November. They are of high reputation and have
>customers all over the world. To the prices; as with all other
>things, supply and demand make the price. I am surprised that
>printmakers themselves criticise high prices for prints in the
>first place.

Michael,
I think we are not understanding some of the culture so we do not
understand the market for some of this work....to my eye some of
it was unsophisticated. This would certainly not be said of your
work, as I think it is very deep and takes a sophisticated art
buyer to appreciate it. You have a wonderful sense of balance and
composition and I find your work very inspiring. As far as price
goes, artists are also customers and collectors and these prices
put prints out of our range...so that is why we are complaining.
It is not that we do not want to sell our own work for a lot of
money, but we also want to be able to purchase the work we see
that we like...and of course artists are not highly paid. I think
Europe is kinder to its artists as there is a lot of state
support for the arts. In the USA the word is still "don't quit
your day job". Sad but true. Best to all,
Barbata



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

From: Sharri LaPierre <Barebonesart#comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:29:06 -0700
Subject: [Baren 22332] Re: Baren Digest V24 #2315 

Barbara,

I would be glad to rename the movement, but I was not the one who came 
up with it. No doubt it was a critic somewhere in the world, Germany if 
I remember correctly - so "Deconstuctionist" it will have to remain!  
:-)  Michael Schneider, help me with this! Who is the well known, 
living, Deconstructionist - Anselm Keifer?  Is that the correct 
spelling? These senior moments are the pits. However his name is 
spelled, I don't believe he is a printmaker, but he is a good example 
of the deconstructionist school.

Hi Flo - it is good to see you on the Baren list. I hope someone can 
help you with the paper question.  Have you tried calling Hiromi in 
Santa Monica?  She can probably tell you all you want to know. Let me 
know if you need her number.

Cheers,
Sharri


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

From: Roger Leee <leesartstuff#shaw.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:49:29 -0700
Subject: [Baren 22333] Re: prices and sophistication 

Hello to all

I regards to Barbara's response Michael regarding pricing and
state support for artists. Try Canada...As far as not quitting
your day job - make sure you have a day job to quit from..

Best of luck to all who create  - regardless of sales.

Roger Lee 
In Canada



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

From: Julio.Rodriguez#walgreens.com
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:33:08 -0500
Subject: [Baren 22334] Re: pricing/value/equations 07/24/2003 


uhmm...free-market, supply & demand, intrinsic value....these words are so 
far removed from the reasons why I enjoy & do woodblock prints that I am 
not sure I should jump in the discussion or not....{;-)

Jumping in ...Excellent posts everybody! 

What are we really saying ? That the value of a print is outside the 
control of the artist ? What is this term "value" ?
A printmaker can make two prints be in total ecstacy over print A and 
perhaps for personal reasons consider print B a total 
failure........YET...in the current fickle art market with all it's 
demonic twists and players.....they both could be in high demand and fetch 
a similar price ? Will the printmaker price both prints the same ? put the 
cash in the pocket and let out a little smile and be surprised when someone 
purchases the failed print ? Sure !!!

What about a printmaker who let's say has been making prints for 10, 20 or 
even 40 years...you would think that over that period of time the 
printmaker has improved his/her craft, developed new skills and has 
arrived at some high point in his/her career.....looking back at the 
earlier attempts surely he/she sees the work and mistakes of a beginner. 
Are those early prints as "valuable" to the printmaker as his latest 
masterpieces ?  Yet the art market/dealer would probably group all the 
works together and sell them at whatever price range it feels it can 
demand...w/o taking in consideration the artist's  input. 

Are we saying that a print magically changes in "value" in response to the 
buying public ? IF so...because everyone now wants to buy one of my prints 
it has somehow increased in "value"....uhmm...not sure I agree.  Perhaps 
to them the value has increased...but not to me, not to the artist. Only 
to the businessmen.

I know a psychologist who charges $160 per hour. I don't make anywhere 
near that in my day job. Most people don't and would agree that is a 
"good" income. She sits there listening to her patients....taking it all 
in...(not sure if she is really listening or thinking about her own stuff 
{;-) ). I normally spend 25-30 hours on a woodblock print...from design to 
finished edition....if I was to make a run of 50 prints and sell 
them....at the same hourly rate of that doctor....that would come out to a 
very affordable sale price of $80 per print.....does not sound like a lot 
until you tell someone that you earn $160 an hour for messing around and 
having fun with paper and colored water {;-)

thanks....Julio Rodriguez (Skokie, Illinois)
ps. in that same example, if you were to charge $1500 per print, it is the 
equivalent of someone making $3000 per
 hour !!!!!!



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

From: Barbara Mason <barbaramason45#yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 22335] $$ per hour 



Jullio,
I want that job that pays $3000 per hour....lets see, how many
hours would we need to work...not many. Good thing we don't think
about selling work while we make it. It has been my experience
and that of most artists I know that as soon as you start
thinking about making work you think someone will buy, your work
just goes downhill and no one buys it at all. So I guess we make
it to make it and sales are the icing on the cake...

If someone told us we could never make art unless we never sold a
pices, would we still make art??? Sure we would. It has not much
to do with sales for most of us. Dave has it figured out, he
makes beautiful art and presells it. Who could do better than
this? And those of us who buy it are never disappointed! Best to
all,
Barbara




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

From: Myron Turner <mturner#Ms.UManitoba.CA>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:33:33 -0500
Subject: [Baren 22336] Re: Baren Digest V24 #2315 

Deconstruction is a philosophical movement, not an art "ism".  It derives 
from the philosophical writings of Jacques Derrida.  It is a philosophy 
which assumes that there is no certainty in our understanding of 
culture--literature, works of art, etc.  There are no underlyng universal 
laws, principals, or structures.  It is to some extent in fact a reaction 
against the movement known as structuralism,  the theory that one can find 
underlying stuctures in culture and society--e.g Marxism, archtype-alism, 
Freudianism, anthroplogical theories of cultures and behavior.  For 
deconstruction, our understanding of culture is culturally and historically 
conditioned, our understanding of our cultural artifacts is inseparable 
from the culture in which an artifact exists, i.e. the work of art, the 
novel, the poem, the philosphical text.  Deconstructonists use the term 
"de-center" to suggest that there is no center:  the center is never 
certain and constantly shifting--and so  to "de-center" a work or a theory 
is in effect to deconstruct that theory, that interpretation, that work, 
etc,. by shifting the perspective with which we view it and by which it 
views itself.


Myron




At 12:29 PM 24/07/2003, you wrote:

>Barbara,
>
>I would be glad to rename the movement, but I was not the one who came up 
>with it. No doubt it was a critic somewhere in the world, Germany if I 
>remember correctly - so "Deconstuctionist" it will have to remain!
>:-)  Michael Schneider, help me with this! Who is the well known, living, 
>Deconstructionist - Anselm Keifer?  Is that the correct spelling? These 
>senior moments are the pits. However his name is spelled, I don't believe 
>he is a printmaker, but he is a good example of the deconstructionist school.
>
>Hi Flo - it is good to see you on the Baren list. I hope someone can help 
>you with the paper question.  Have you tried calling Hiromi in Santa 
>Monica?  She can probably tell you all you want to know. Let me know if 
>you need her number.
>
>Cheers,
>Sharri





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

From: "carol wagner" <carolwagner#softcom.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:39:54 -0700
Subject: [Baren 22337] Hooray for printmakers 

  Bravo Bill Ritchie!

  Yes,   I for one agree. <Handprints. Silhouettes and relief prints,
in other words, quite a different way to shape an image--don't you agree?>

And speaking of prints, Bette Wappner's Goat/sheep card was well worth the
wait, with its suitable Haiku. I am printing the postcard blocks this week,
the deck of cards (7 of hearts)  is ready to be mailed off tomorrow, and am
only  awaiting the arrival of paper to print my August calendar print.

Barbara, I just had an insane thought...If we're putting something back
together after we have taken it apart, couldn't that be considered as
Reconstructivism?  Or rather the result would be Reconstructivism, after we
had done Deconstructivism...!? And Sharri. I love it when you teach/share
thoughts. Please don't give up your 'teaching mode'.

John furrypress, I love Albrecht Durer as much as I love Hokasai, so anytime
a discussion starts is fine by me! I'm not always able to respond as quickly
as some of you to posts and often feel like a runner in a race desperately
trying to keep pace , but I love the discussions and ideas that pop up in
the daily Digests.Also, John, woodtalk is especially appreciated...

 Staying cheerful in hot, muggy Sacramento,
Carol G-W







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

From: David Bull <davebull#woodblock.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:40:00 +0900
Subject: [Baren 22338] Re: print prices 

Michael wrote:

> To the prices; as with all other things, supply and demand make
the > price.


This, I think, is only true for those areas where the same
product is available on the market from different suppliers - I
mean something like a loaf of bread, or a car. The different suppliers 
are competing with each other to bring essentially the same thing to market, so
yes, the market does set the price - if any supplier sets his
price too high, the buyers will go to his competitors.

But _are_ woodblock prints from different makers the 'same
product'? It would seem not, not when we have David Bull prints at $50~60, and
Rei Yuki prints at $1500 side by side on the market. You might
answer "This is just like cars - there are Volkswagens and there are
Rolls-Royces!",

but I think that would be a misleading comparison - there is
basically no inherent 'quality' difference in the two prints!

It becomes a question of MIke's comment:

> Whatever the market will bear!


But think about the implicit philosophy that is actually present
in that statement; when you say "Whatever the market will bear" you are
actually saying "I want to transfer as much money as possible from that
guy's pocket to mine!" Mike, I _know_ that's not why you make
prints, so why say something like that?

Why not say something like "I love designing these prints, and I
love making these prints, and I would love for as many people as
possible to share these pleasures with me!"

Just over four years ago, when I 'did the spreadsheet' to work
out what the price of my Surimono Album would have to be - balancing all
the costs against my living expenses - I tried to find the
_lowest possible level_ for the price. "How inexpensive can I get these things,
and still be able to make a living at this?"

Sure I'd like to get money ... of course I need money ...
(especially after just shelling out all the bux for my daughter
to join a Maritime Workers Union (!)) ... but I just _can't_ feel that these little
scraps of paper are in any way 'worth' the kind of $ that are quoted on
the website we saw yesterday.

Make them good!  Make them affordable!  and Make a _boatload_ of
them!

_That's_ what woodblock printmaking is about!

Julio wrote:

> in that same example, if you were to charge $1500 per print, >
it is the equivalent of someone making $3000 per hour !!!!!!


Actually Julio, I think that this is 'jumping to conclusions'.
The 'price per hour' charged by any skilled worker of course
reflects the level of skill required in performing the job - and
this must include amortization of all the years of training
required to reach that level

of skill. If you do the math, you would find that even at my low
(?) price levels, the $ per hour is still quite substantial!

(Hope everybody understands that I _do_ have respect for people
on the other side of this discussion, even though I can't get my head
around their way of thinking!)

Dave


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

End of Baren Digest V24 #2316
*****************************