Today's postings

  1. [Baren 27838] Numbering (ArtfulCarol #
  2. [Baren 27839] A familiar question on editions ("Connie Lambert")
  3. [Baren 27840] Re: Wood Engraving Course in Cambridge, England (Mike Lyon)
  4. [Baren 27841] Re: Wood Engraving Course in Cambridge, England (Bette Norcross Wappner)
  5. [Baren 27842] Re: New Baren Digest (HTML) V31 #3043 (Apr 21, 2005) (Barebonesart #
  6. [Baren 27843] Re: Ref : A familiar question on editions (Barbara Mason)
  7. [Baren 27844] more on editioning! (L Cass)
  8. [Baren 27845] previous continued (L Cass)
  9. [Baren 27846] RE: Familiar edition question ("Bill H. Ritchie, Jr.")
  10. [Baren 27847] Re: Familiar edition question ("Ramsey Household")
  11. [Baren 27848] Re: Familiar edition question (FurryPressII #
  12. [Baren 27849] RE: Familiar edition question ("cjpiers")
  13. [Baren 27850] Re: Familiar edition question ("Matt Laine")
Member image

Message 1
From: ArtfulCarol #
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:23:48 EDT
Subject: [Baren 27838] Numbering
Send Message: To this poster

Dale asked:
>If one does start an edition, say 4 blocks with multiple colors and only
>does a few, yet numbers them 1 ?? 3 / 16, and then decides to modify the color a
>bit or carve a little away here or there, are the subsequent prints still in
>the same edition?
>Dale Phelps
>Waterloo, IA
Dale, I've seen such prints called "Variants" in galleries and museums and
that's what I follow since most of mine are like that. How to number
Variants--don't remember.
Carol L
Irvington, NY
Member image

Message 2
From: "Connie Lambert"
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:57:32 -0500
Subject: [Baren 27839] A familiar question on editions
Send Message: To this poster

Harry wrote:

>Dear Bareners,
>You are always so generous with answers and comments to my questions
>on the forum, but the response from my latest question is fantastic.
>The barracking with the Giclee printer (a former university screen/serigraph
>lecturer ) was lively, but there was a stalemate on my editions idea.
>Opening it to Barenforum and then reading the answer/comments was
>most fruitful. It is an issue that has been bugging me for 40 odd
>Thanks for taking the time to sort out an old dog trying new tricks.

Hi there,
Harry, I agree. This banter back and forth has been interesting, indeed.

It is good to see that I'm not the only one with "reservations" about Giclee
printmaking. I don't see anything handmade about the giclee printing
process. And hesitate to include it in the list of Printmaking Processes.
Then on the other hand, one could argue that it's a tool, just like the
Dremel tool (that I do use on occasion). But it still seems wrong to me.
Maybe it should be labeled something other than printmaking. More like INK
JET reproductions.

I'm more like Barb, I hardly ever edition. Except for trades. But by the
time I'm done with the edition I am anxious to move on. I would find it hard
to ever go back and complete the edition. Since I rarely work in just black
and white, it would be impossible to mix the ink the same. Therefore I feel
compelled to complete the whole edition at one time. (Besides there is usu.
a deadline, right?)

Maybe if I get as famous and marketable as most of the Bareners, I'll need
to do more editions. :)

But my real question is for Harry. After all the discussion, DID YOU COME TO
ANY CONCLUSIONS about the editioning process? (All at once? Or a little at a

Connie Lambert
Member image

Message 3
From: Mike Lyon
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:00:50 -0500
Subject: [Baren 27840] Re: Wood Engraving Course in Cambridge, England
Send Message: To this poster

Andy English wrote:
>I will be teaching a three day wood engraving course in Cambridge, England
>on August 19th - 21st. It will take place at the St. Barnabas Press. It
>isn't advertised on their website yet but the contact details to get more
>information are there:

Congratulations, Andy! I wish you were closer to Kansas City! Sounds like
a great class!

-- Mike

Mike Lyon
Kansas City, Missouri
Member image

Message 4
From: Bette Norcross Wappner
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:04:56 -0400
Subject: [Baren 27841] Re: Wood Engraving Course in Cambridge, England
Send Message: To this poster

Andy, I'd be there in a heartbeat too, if I could.
Warm wishes from Kentucky,
Member image

Message 5
From: Barebonesart #
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:02:20 +0000
Subject: [Baren 27842] Re: New Baren Digest (HTML) V31 #3043 (Apr 21, 2005)
Send Message: To this poster

Hi everyone!
I have been quiet during the editions conversation because I am in Grand Forks, ND this week and I'm not sure how this reply will come through since it is being done on webmail.

Editions are, in fact, INTENDED numbers. John C is correct on all counts, Durer & Co. never heard of an edition, but we live in times where they exist so it behooves us to work within the program. Numbers are fictitious and do not connotate the order in which the prints were pulled, but only the order in which they were signed and numbered. And, no collector is going to be upset because there were less than stipulated.

As to the question of changing the block half way through the printing - if it is changed significantly then it becomes a new "state". Most contemporary printmakers tend to ignore the old "rules" and make their own up as they go along - " if it changes, it changes, it is no big deal - it is still basically the same image and the numbers go on--" while others adhere strictly to the rules and declare states, second editions, etc. Personally, I try to hit a happy medium and not throw the rules out, but not feel too bound by them either :-)

I would venture that most of us started out as painters, and still do paint in addition to making prints, but half of the art of the print is in the printing. There is a challenge in getting each of those little buggers to come out just perfect! So, relax, Marilynn, and enjoy the rhythym of pulling those roosters off the block - it can be as meditative as carving! Maybe more so - and ohhhh, so good for the soul!

Cheers to all! I am off to do the printmaking with the 1st grade this afternoon. We are working with geometric objects and as luck would have it, the class has been doing geometry and guess what?? Geo objects! It must be serendipity!

Member image

Message 6
From: Barbara Mason
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 27843] Re: Ref : A familiar question on editions
Send Message: To this poster

Yes, but the rest say VE as in varied edition
Member image

Message 7
From: L Cass
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:24:49 -0400
Subject: [Baren 27844] more on editioning!
Send Message: To this poster

Hi All,

This subject may have been done to death but I'd still like to add my 2
cents' worth. since my prints are an adjunct to painting (much as I'd wish
and hope to do and learn more) I've been limiting bl and white woodcuts to
12 and hand coloured to 6 -quite realistically feeling that sales would not
be huge however-they have been sold by 3 dealers (commercial galleries) who
handle my work as well as one public gallery (their art sales and rentals)
these dealers haven't been the slightest bit interested in the numbering or
'editioning' and two collectors
of prints only, apparently, bought without a question but of course I did
have a magic number on the prints. I really would prefer not to bother with
editions at all but just produce prints as needed as I'm terrible at record
keeping -after all I certainly don't expect to go down in the annals of Art
History of the 20-21st centuries.

More to the point I really believe that 'editioning' was a ploy demanded by
art dealers to enhance artists' reputations and their own pockets.
Serious buyers were then informed that this was an important point to
consider when purchasing.Today this has been abused by lesser merchants
(framers and printsellers in Malls etc) who'll 'edition' any old stuff and
this is basically what we're all competing or contending with. I once
possessed a copy of Théodore Duret's book on the impressionists with
beautiful original prints by Renoir, Morisot et al -can't remember any
numbering on them but some quite obviously from the same book turned up,
framed and selling for high prices in a respected Montréal gallery (this
dealer was able to sell them without edition numbers it would seem.
Member image

Message 8
From: L Cass
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:06:31 -0400
Subject: [Baren 27845] previous continued
Send Message: To this poster

Many apologies - my computer is acting up - I received only the first part
of this ill-begotten e-mail -don't know what happened or what others will
get but have attempted to copy,paste and send the remainder - all very
ROBIN MORRIS -this is where you should come in,with time and I'm sure the
interest at your disposal, and undertake to do some research into the
subject of when and how this came to pass or does someone out there have a
quick and ready answer?
I know that Matisse signed and numbered small editions of etchings (15-25
mostly) but going back to Rembrandt e.g. I don't recall seeing numbers on
his - some weren't even signed. When visiting a posh London (UK) gallery a
couple of years ago which was selling what we term modern 'gilt-edge'
prints the staff definitely seemed to stress the numbers rather than
quality of the works. As with Hollywood 'Super stars' certain artists have
a reputation to make and uphold and rigorous 'editioning' of prints appears
to be part of it.
Now I've sounded off, I imagine you all get the drift of what I'm saying -
in life - does it all really matter?!! shouldn't we be more concerned with
the making of art as some others out there have suggested. So many people
in the arts today are fortunate in being able to sell; prices for some
(and their dealers) being phenomenal - one weeps to think of Van Gogh's
penury and Rembrandt's final years of debts and the same -won't even
mention the many others we celebrate today who died in disastrous
SHARRI in answer to " we live in times where they exist so it behooves us
to work within the program" Why can't we rebel against this ? it doesn't
seem to make any difference to sales and it might stop the abuses which
have occurred as a result of the present day emphasis on 'numbering'
before I sign off - re the discussion pertaining to books on colour, I had
mentioned some time back a fabulous little gem of a book which just may
contain the most recent research on the subject along with historical stuff
-here is the reference again:
authors- François Delamare & Bernard Guineau , Eng. trans,Thames & Hudson,
2000 , ISBN 0-500-30102-6 (Fr. Ed. Gallimard 1999)
Although it's a tiny paperback it contains much on the history of pigments
as well as the newest synthetics and their properties - a fascinating book
altogether! It must be available somewhere in the Americas.
Louise Cass
Member image

Message 9
From: "Bill H. Ritchie, Jr."
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:29:25 -0700
Subject: [Baren 27846] RE: Familiar edition question
Send Message: To this poster

I followed with interest the discussion about editions that was inspired by
a conversation with a giclee artist.

Three things I can't resist pointing out: One is that in regards to MAKING
MONEY, I think all printmaking techniques were invented and developed to
make money for someone, or save money, or somesuch. Printmaking is
decidedely linked to economics and politics, often religion as well.

Its association with "fine art" a modern idea and largely the property of
the leisured class.

Second, I think history shows that every time a new angle on printing
techniques is invented, it generates a lot of criticism from the people who
are invested in the other printing techniques. Screen printing, for example,
took years to shrug off the commercial aspect of "silk screen" to become

Someone said that each new printing technology spends its first twenty years
looking like that which it will, eventually, replace entirely. In my
opinion, giclee hasn't found its own voice yet, and those who use it are
partly driven by the same curiosity and invention that drives all of us to
find what can be done with this magic.

Third, I think the real value of printmaking is its social aspect, the great
benefits that these processes provide for people like us to talk, to argue,
to compare, to share and show off and -- oh yes, get back the money we spend
on doing it.

Let's not be too judging of our friends who make giclee prints. Some of my
best friends are giclee artists.

- Bill

Emeralda Dev Site:
Original Web Site:
Snail Mail: 500 Aloha #105, Seattle 98109
Member image

Message 10
From: "Ramsey Household"
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:06:40 -0700
Subject: [Baren 27847] Re: Familiar edition question
Send Message: To this poster


As long as it is an original print and not a reproduction of another medium!

Member image

Message 11
From: FurryPressII #
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:27:08 EDT
Subject: [Baren 27848] Re: Familiar edition question
Send Message: To this poster

How many giclee are just reproductions of an artists watercolor or oil
painting? That does not bother me all that much if the artist explains the
difference between artist pulled prints and giclee reproductions. Remember
mezzotint prints were invented to reproduce paintings. As well as most other print
making up until the 19th century. Now Master printer/publisher produced prints
that are made in traditional print making methods but only signed by the
artist in question are somewhere in between.

It is more than likely the art historians studying Rembrandt's
prints decided to say which state a print was. I very much doubt he kept records
of such things.

Now for my Baren and W.E.N. exchanges I do edition in the traditional manner
but for my own work I tend to make "mono-types (or is it mono-prints)" I
have been known to use a matrix a number of times but the finished print or
artist book ends up being a unique object so I just sign and date it.

john c.
Member image

Message 12
From: "cjpiers"
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:16:00 -0700
Subject: [Baren 27849] RE: Familiar edition question
Send Message: To this poster

I also have reservations about giclee. I like it best when it's used to create an edition of computor art which can be fabulous! I also think its fine for high end "posters" of another medium but not as art prints like woodblock etc. which are each one works of art. (unless it's comp art)
I draw my own personal line at the giclee canvas print "hand touched" by the artist (or one of his employees). Or when something is mass produced with giclee, which I think is still too expensive for mass mass production as compared to offset. But I gotta say the thing that gets me the most is stuff like Bev Doolittle. "Prints" sell (for example) at $400 and can be in a limited edition of 39,689 or more hand signed?! And I have seen them for sale at around $1500. For what I consider a poster. An expensive poster but nonetheless a 4-color offset litho poster. Bah! (nothing against offset) I would rather (if I were going to) pay $400 for a giclee of a watercolor if I felt comfortable it was an honest limited edition of 200 or somesuch number. I guess it's kind of like the age old question "But is it art?" It's different for everyone.

Dang, I think this is the most strongly opinionated viewpoint on something I have ever shared on Baren. :o)
(nothing against Bev Doolittle)
But the whole thing drives me crazy.

in Spokane, WA
Member image

Message 13
From: "Matt Laine"
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:49:46 -0400
Subject: [Baren 27850] Re: Familiar edition question
Send Message: To this poster

Value ($$$$) is created solely by the purchaser. Things (including artwork) are worth what people are willing to pay -- and that goes forRembrandt, Bev Doolittle, giclee, hand pulled prints, photo-offset,and/or whoever and whatever. Marketing (and the opinions of "critics") molds the buyers perception of value.

Matt in Landenberg (Landenberg? Where's that?)