PDA

View Full Version : How Anybody Can Make Prints


Thrash
01-13-2003, 04:50 PM
Here is a limited edition print I made using a copy machine. Called "Dry Creek Bed" the image is 5x7". I did the preliminary drawing in ink, then copied it with a good copier onto domestic etching paper I ran through the machine in the provided slot. (If the machine won't take that thickness, I run Strathmore 1 ply paper through). Here it costs me 5 cents per copy. Then I shaded the pic with pencil, including ALL of the sky, with gradation darker near the edges. Then I signed, numbered, and matted it.

Prints also can be done with ink wash or watercolor or designed to do without added pencil or color. Tape the paper down all around before using watercolor. It'll be flat when it dries. For large prints, the Xerox Postermaker at many Kinko's is 18x24 and will accept 90-lb. watercolor paper. They knock off a dollar (costing $4) if you provide your own paper.

It's fun to experiment with pencil and color on prints; it's cheap, and you needn't fear messing up your original drawing.

My other prints are at http://www.absolutearts.com/portfolios/s/spocari/

Christobal
01-15-2003, 06:13 AM
Good idea, and well executed !
Chris

timelady
01-15-2003, 04:27 PM
Er, not to be fussy but I have to be the voice of disagreement. Lovely work, but it would be considered a reproduction print not an original print (which is what this forum is for - printmaking). PRINTMAKING is the process whereby you make a plate (the original) and each copy is hand inked and pressed (by hand or through a pressure press, or anything equivalent).

Also be aware that the inks in photocopiers are not intended to last very long. Just so you know. :) There's nothing wrong with doing what you're doing, I just like to clear up the distinction between printmaking and reproductions when it arises because there's a lot of confusion out there and it usually hurts the printmakers when customers wonder why an etching is so expensive or why a monoprint is as much as a painting when they can get a "limited edition print" down the road for cheap. Wow, that had to be a run-on sentence. ;)

Tina.

Thrash
01-15-2003, 05:23 PM
Thanks, Timelad. All I saw was the word, "lovely." And compound sentences don't tax me; after all, I'm from Faulkner country.

I see PRINTMAKING as a loose term.

I'm making prints by a modest process that is pretty much the same as photo-offset and encourages experimentation. Not everyone has access to litho stone, etching plates, and press. And these look just as good, or better, and each one is unique. Ones I made twenty-three years ago don't appear to have changed over time.

And you don't have to run a whole bunch or worry about selling enough to cover your cost. It costs practically nothing.

I've been allowed to shuffle through loose Barbizon prints at my leisure in the NY Public Library print collection and the cliche verre prints at Kennedy Galleries. Cliche verre allowed the artists to make their own prints by a photographic process (as is Xerox) . They scratched the images onto glass that had been prepared with a coat of bitumen, then printed them on photographic paper with a light source and developed the paper. Technically, they are contact photographs. A Corot cliche verre print wouldn't pass your litmus test, but it would fetch big bucks at Kennedy Galleries.

If anyone sees this work and wants to invest in my career and set me up making stone lithographs or etchings, that would be great, too. I'm auditioning. A backer would provide me the money to make an edition of prints, then we would split the profits in a predetermined manner. I would also expect a certain amount of money just for my trouble. That's the way Warhol did it after 1968. However, I think a person has to establish a career as a painter with a good gallery before making prints, which would appeal to modest collectors with less money to invest but an interest in the artist's work and career.

But I bet that if I had a career, then these early ones that I laboriously pencil-shaded or watercolored or ink washed by hand would be far more valuable in the long run than the conventionally produced prints.

Try out this one below: "Trees in Spring", 10x10", limited-edition copier print on cheap typing paper, colored with pencil and Crayola Crayon. Original drawing done on domestic etching paper with a $1.50 Sanford Calligraphy pen. A more expressionistic style. This edition is limited to the number of prints I can sell between now and the return of Haley's Comet.

I'm not out to single-handedly sabotage the world market for fine prints, but it's a flattering idea.

Thrash
01-16-2003, 09:40 PM
Here's another of my copier prints: "Church with Towers," 7x7" copied onto cheap ivory card stock with ink wash. Based on a 2-1/4" negative photographed in Alabama.

An important advantage to doing washes over copies is that the ink DOESN'T RUN!!

Gisela
01-17-2003, 05:05 AM
Interesting method of working!

I guess I don't really see these as reproductions, since you're doing additional work after the copy proccess. I'm not really sure I see it as 'printmaking either. I'm not sure how I'd classify these, but they do look really good... ;) Gotta think about this one some more

Gisela

sassybird
01-19-2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Gisela
Interesting method of working!

I guess I don't really see these as reproductions, since you're doing additional work after the copy proccess. I'm not really sure I see it as 'printmaking either. I'm not sure how I'd classify these, but they do look really good... ;) Gotta think about this one some more

Gisela

I have to agree with Gisela on this. Timelady, you definitely stood up well for us fine art printmakers....lol You can be my mouth piece any time :D

Thrash, experimentation is always good. Photo copies are often used to transfer an image onto a plate with the use of gum arabic as a first step to developing an image. Especially if more than one plate is being used to develop a print. It is essential to getting good registration when doing multiple colors. Solar plates are fairly new in printmaking, but they are still plates. There are new techniques being discovered every day in printmaking. That is what keeps the medium so fresh, but those techniques follow the standard of what fine art prints are as I have defined below. Fine art limited edition prints are:
#1 A plate is used to develop the image on
#2 The image is refined and hand worked by the artist
#3 Limited Edition means just that, limited. You preset a number of prints, hand number and sign them, then you strike the plate so that no more can be made. This assures the buyers that they are not getting reproductions, but a print from a limited number. That is what makes fine art prints valuable and very collectable. I never do more than 25 of one image.

What you are doing with your work is creating what is called a varied edition where each piece is unique. This is done in etching and lino also by hand coloring or changing the paper or ink color. The image remains the same, but there are differences in appearance. With the technique you are using there is no way to strike the plate and cut off the number of prints. This edition is limited to the number of prints I can sell between now and the return of Haley's Comet. To me that is cheating the buyers. They have no idea how many you will be printing in the future, and it detracts from the worth of the print.

Also, Gisela and Timelady brought up a good point. To assure the longevity of a print all materials used in producing it must be archival. A year or so ago I saw an intaglio etching that was done in the 1700's. The image was as crisp and clear as if it had been printed yesterday. There was no real aging of the paper, because it was acid free, and it is the acid that causes color change and yellowing. That piece stood the test of time, and for a printmaker that is as important as it is to a painter.

If you have not had the oppurtunity to read up on work done by artists like Whistler, Baskin, Cassatt, Dine, Durer, and Klee do so. They were all painters that turned to printmaking to bring in money. Their biographies are fascinating, and I gained a lot of knowledge from reading them. Whistler for instance was more well known for "Whistler's Mother", but he was in fact primarily a fine art printmaker that used the dry point technique.

Xerox inks are not colorfast or archival. Now you can buy archival inks for your printer at home, and use archival paper to print with, but nothing of that sort is available in Kinko's or other copier stores. The paper you can bring and be sure of, but the ink will not withstand the test of time, and since it not acid free even using it on archival paper there will be damage in time. If you are selling your work please lable it as reproduction prints. That is the right phrase, and you can also say they are varied reproduction prints since you are working on them by hand after they come off the copy machine. It is very important to distinguish between fine art prints and reproductions (produced by machine). The work that it takes to produce a fine art print is time consuming, because there are so many steps involved in producing the image on the plate. In reproductions the machine does all the work for the main image while you enhance it by your hand work afterwards. It just isn't the same. Each fine art print produced is printed by a freshly hand inked plate.

Thrash
01-21-2003, 09:55 PM
Alas, Charissa, I've never sold one!

The comment about Haley's Comet was a joke.

I use acid free paper for the copies.

One of the reasons I started doing these was to make copies of favorite drawings to lessen the chance of losing them. Sometimes I'll copy a pencil drawing, then shade it with pencil so it looks exactly like the original drawing. Here's an example:

16x20" copy print, hand shaded with pencil. Original was plein air drawing:

"Stream and Bank"

sciartist
02-02-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by sassybird

Xerox inks are not colorfast or archival. Now you can buy archival inks for your printer at home, and use archival paper to print with, but nothing of that sort is available in Kinko's or other copier stores.

This is my first post over here. Was just browsing around and came across this topic. First let me say that I really like what you are doing Thrash. Now about the toner in "Xerox" copies. The toner is actually more light fast and archival that pigmented inks. As long as you are using acid free paper, I would be more worried about the type of ink you use to embelish the print. I see absolutely nothing wrong in what you are doing. :) But then again I'm not a traditional printmaker.

:p

inisheerstudio
02-10-2003, 12:09 AM
Thrash....you're my hero! lol :D

Thrash
02-10-2003, 03:21 PM
Thanks, Sciartist, for the info on the permanence of toner inks.

Here's a color print using the Xerox Postermaker:

"Sunlit Trees"
16x17", watercolor over copier print on domestic etching.
1999.

Lampburke
02-18-2003, 08:20 PM
Officially "printing" or not, I like this idea, it is imaginative!

T.Wagner
02-20-2003, 04:27 PM
:clap:
Great ,I thought I was the only one that was thinking along this line. I started doing my own "prints" "reproductions" "clones"
at home a year ago.I have sold some ,and I make it a point to tell
my customers that this is what I am doing.I havent had any complaints,or unsatisfied customers. Everyone has raised some good points concerning this issue.And although it is not the traditional way of doing things, is it really wrong ? Who knows.
Call it what you want,if it makes you happy do it.
T. W.

Gisela
02-20-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by T.Wagner

Call it what you want,if it makes you happy do it.
T. W.

There lies the problem. IMO, it's unethical to 'call it what you want.' Printmakers sometimes spend weeks on preparing a plate, not to mention the time and work that goes into inking, wiping, and printing every single print. There's no comparing that to making Xerox copies and spending a few minutes laying a wash on the reproduction.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with what you're doing...just don't call it a fine art print. And certainly don't call it a limited edition. ;)

Gisela

sassybird
02-21-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Gisela


There lies the problem. IMO, it's unethical to 'call it what you want.' Printmakers sometimes spend weeks on preparing a plate, not to mention the time and work that goes into inking, wiping, and printing every single print. There's no comparing that to making Xerox copies and spending a few minutes laying a wash on the reproduction.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with what you're doing...just don't call it a fine art print. And certainly don't call it a limited edition. ;)

Gisela

Exactly. It is fun to work with things like this, but don't try to put it in a nitch where it does not belong. Printmakers strike their plates after they finish an edition so that buyers know there are only so many in that edition. What you are doing can not even fit the varied edition catagory, because they are still reproductions, and you can not assure the buyers that there are only so many. I frame and hang my striked plates when I show. That gives the buyers what they want to see, that there are no more going to be printed, and that the piece they are buying is worth something since it is a limited edition.

Thrash
02-21-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Gisela


Printmakers sometimes spend weeks on preparing a plate, not to mention the time and work that goes into inking, wiping, and printing every single print. There's no comparing that to making Xerox copies and spending a few minutes laying a wash on the reproduction.

...just don't call it a fine art print. And certainly don't call it a limited edition. ;)

Gisela

First of all, here's another one:

"Hillside with Limestone Scar", 3x3.5", print done on xerox machine on acid free paper, then shaded with yellow pencils, no. 1, 2, 3. A white streak of exposed white limestone.


http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/21-Feb-2003/16703-limestone.jpg

Gisela, just because someone spends a lot of time and energy on something making it into an etching or lithograph, it doesn't mean the finished piece is going to be any good, especially if their imagery and ideas about art are banal.

Even at close examination, my prints actually look like pen and pencil drawings or lithographs. The first print of this thread, "Dry Creek Bed", required four hours of pencil shading to get the first one right, then I found I could do another one based on that model in one hour, and I've still never sold one, 14 years later. This picture exists only as a pencil-shaded print, and I think it's a good picture. I would never show anyone the original ink drawing underneath the pencil; it was not intended to be shown. I studied the loose Barbizon prints in the print room of the NY Public Library on 42nd street to try to get my prints to look like theirs, and frankly, I think I have succeeded in some of them. Fine art relates to ideas and intentions, not technical criteria. The Starne twins scotch-tape photographs together.

And I spend plenty of time working on those washes, experimenting with them to get the first one right.

I've looked at the work of the pedants who have turned up their noses at what I'm doing. Mostly I see work that doesn't rise above the level of hack commercial illustration, poor graphic design, or at worst, Clip-Art. These people think they can raise these banal images to a fine-art level merely by running them through an expensive craft process. Arts-and-crafts don't interest me. Sorry. Take it to the mall.

And retiring the plate and such just creates artificial scarcity. Remember, it's officially ok to create a further edition with the same plate, but making a change in color or paper or whatever.

If any of you want me to critique your work by name, just let me know; I went to Parsons School of Design, and what's worse, I know art history since 1800.

Here's one that looks like a conventional lithograph:

"Trees and Branch"
9x12", copier print with ink wash and watercolor on acid-free paper.


http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/21-Feb-2003/16703-Trees_and_Branch-998919217.jpg

sassybird
02-22-2003, 01:44 AM
Thrash, I just don't think you get it. What you are doing is unique, but it is not traditional printmaking. Do you know what striking a plate means? I take a big gouge and stike through the plate into the metal to obliterate the actual image. It can not be printed again in a different color, or on different paper afterwards. The plate is destroyed for futher use. This is what makes a limited edition more valuable. This is what shows the buyers that what they are buying is one of only so many, in my case no more than 25 in an edition. It is not retiring the plate, but destroying the image created, which no matter how hard a printmaker tries they can never reproduce that same plate again. Have you ever taking a printmaking class? This does not create artificial scarcity, it proves the scarcity of the print.

A Varied Edition is one that is done on different papers, or with different inks, hand colored etc.... But it is still the same image off the same plate that has been hand worked for weeks. Shoot, I have worked plates for a month or more to get the image I want. Working a copper plate is not an easy task. It is rewarding, and that is why it is my main medium, but it is not easy. The tools used, the acids, the inks, the wiping technique that needs to be the same for each print off a plate for them to come out the same. This is not drawing something then taking it to Kinkos to make photocopies, and then altering them afterwards. That is not printmaking.

There is a very small percentage of artists that are fine art printmakers in this world. Why? Because it is a difficult medium to work in no matter what technique you use. There is pride, and a sense of honor among printmakers that follow the traditional ways and do not break the trust of collectors by misrepresenting their work by printing more than what they say they have printed. It is the work, the confidence of collectors that is rewarding, special, and honesty is the main factor.

What I am telling you does not negate your work, or the time you have put into it. I like what you are doing, and might even give it a try myself for experimental reasons if nothing else. It just isn't fine art printmaking.

It is fine art, no arguement about that, it just doesn't fit into the category of fine art printmaking. You are working in a new area, and I respect that. It is the pioneers that open the way for new forms of art. Please don't try to put a square peg in a round hole. It won't fit.

I encourage you to keep working on this technique, and I hope that you will keep us updated with posts on how you are progressing. Take pride in your own style and technique, but please come up with your own phrase to represent it.

T.Wagner
02-22-2003, 07:56 AM
Another attempt at the attachment

T.Wagner
02-22-2003, 08:19 AM
Great I got my attachment to go but my message got lost ,sorry.
I myself called them prints ,"for lack of a better term" it is very clear to me now ,that a new name should be appied.
I think that this could be a new area to explore and refine.
I have found that in doing my "reproductions" certain " happy accidents" occur. The blueish tint in the barn scene I posted for example. That happened when I scanned it,it was not drawn in ther by me.
Thrash, you're onto something here. Keep at it.

Thrash
02-24-2003, 11:52 AM
Thanks for the encouragement, T.Wag. Enjoyed seeing your work here ; post some more.

T.Wagner
02-24-2003, 06:10 PM
Thanks Thrash,
Sassybird brought up some excellent points,it is a new area. With technology moving at the pace it is Im sure there will be more of this kind of thing happening. I got into this as a way to sell copies of my lighthouse sketches ,without having to involve anyone else.
I have had some good results,although I havent quit the dayjob yet. Best of luck to you Thrash. Thanks to Sassybird, and Gisela for the insght, I am new to this kind of thing ,and have learned alot.

Thrash
02-24-2003, 08:11 PM
That's a very detailed architectural drawing, T.Wag! Impressive. And like you said, I got into this to be able to make prints of my pictures without involving anyone else.

I tried to check your webpage, but in your address you have a comma after www, instead of a period, so I had to change it to get to see your work. How exactly are you making these copies?

One of the reasons I've posted my notes on how to make prints with copiers is so people can make any type style of prints they want to make, cheaply, and without having to run a lot of prints at once, and they can experiment at each stage of the process. And it's a process that can be used to make everything from note cards to large fine art pieces on big, good paper with the Xerox Postermaker at Kinko's which holds 18x24" paper.

I do my drawings on Strathmore 400 med. cream paper, and it also runs through most xerox machines that have a slot for feeding your own paper through.

In light of your series on lighthouses, here's another of my churches:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/24-Feb-2003/16703-Church_with_Cupola-1042087328.jpg

"Church with Cupola," 7x7, copier print with pencil shading. Rural church in Marengo County, Alabama.

And here are five of them: http://www.absolutearts.com/cgi-bin/portfolio/art/your-works.cgi?login=spocari&page=7

Of course, pen and ink drawings that are run off on good paper on the machine will look exactly like the originals, and you can use crosshatching and scribbling to get the tones instead of pencil. Here's one:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/24-Feb-2003/16703-Central_Park_III.jpg

"Tree in Central Park," 4x5", copier print on Strathmore 400 med cream.

sassybird
02-24-2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by sciartist


This is my first post over here. Was just browsing around and came across this topic. First let me say that I really like what you are doing Thrash. Now about the toner in "Xerox" copies. The toner is actually more light fast and archival that pigmented inks. As long as you are using acid free paper, I would be more worried about the type of ink you use to embelish the print. I see absolutely nothing wrong in what you are doing. :) But then again I'm not a traditional printmaker.

:p

I am older than toner, and have things that were printed 20 years ago, kept in a light free, dry enviornment, and the toner has faded to the point where I can barely read it. When I speak about archival I am talking about things that have lasted 1000 years or more. I have seen prints made in the 1600's that look as fresh as if they were printed yesterday. That is archival.

As a fine art printmaker I have done a lot of research into these areas, and basic toner that is in most xerox machines is not archival. There are some machines that are specialized for archival inks and papers, but they are rare. I use archival ink in my printer for making greeting cards, and for printing family photos etc...

If you have read this whole thread you will find that the debate is not about toner. It is about what is considered fine art printmaking, and what is not. What Thrash and T.Wagner are doing is very unique, and deserves to have a phrase or name that fits their art form. Fine Art Printmaking is not that name.

T.Wagner
02-24-2003, 10:07 PM
Thanks again Thrash,sorry about my typing skills, that mistake has been changed .It is www.stonehousegallery.net
I do my drawings on card stock,I prefer the smoother texture. Everything is scanned into my computer,and I use a basic photo program to do the different sized prints. I use a Lexmark Z42 printer with the properties set for higher quality prints (most likely why I go through so many cartridges ) I can only do up to an 8x10 ,I havent tried anything larger yet. Sassybird has brought up another excellent point,about fading.
I have one of my very first "copies" hanging in my dining room,directly opposite a large east facing window,this print gets alot of light throughout the course of the day ,no signs of yellowing or fading thus far. I am not trying to take anything away from the print makers, I'm just trying to find a way to do things for myself. T.Wagner

Shortboy
02-25-2003, 10:37 AM
Iím new to this site also and happened to be scanning this section as Iíve reproduced and sold art in this way too. When I first started reproducing scanned copies of my art, I also called them ďprintsĒ. I believe it was a natural occurance as they came out of a machine called a ďprinterĒ, so I refered to them as prints. At all the shows I attended and art I sold over the net, everything came with a discription of the entire process, as I was proud of how I produced them. Some had additional work done after they came out(Hand colored ect.), some were sold as they appeared. Acid free paper was used along with arc. Inks and different weight and types of paper were used. As a rule, I tried to use as heavy a stock of paper as the printer would handle. I too wanted a unique name for them so I settled on ĎDigital Reproduction Printsí. Yea, I know itís a mouthful, but I hadnít seen it before so I went with it. Just the name alone induced people to ask me how I produced them which precipitated a full explination of the entire process. I was never under any illusion that they were ĎFine art Printsí nor were any of my customerís. At $10 a pop, they were affordable reproduced prints(because they were made by a printer). I would never intentially mislead anyone or advertise my art as something itís not, but I really donít see the road bump over the word Ďprintí. Why would anything produced by a printer, not be allowed to be called a print? I donít mean to step on any fine art printers toes here as I know it takes great skill, time and effort to be an accomplished printer, but I canít afford the professional expertise, so I had to turn to a different direction to get my art out there.
All I can say is, Iíve never had anyone leave my booth with a piece of my art that didnít know exactly what they had, and how it was made. Again, If Iíve offended anyone here, please accept my oppologies as it was certainly not my intent to do so.

sassybird
02-25-2003, 11:51 AM
Shortboy, Digital Reproduction Prints is a great name for what you are doing. I have a friend that does the same type work, and that is what she calls them also.

You are right about everyone not being able to afford the flat bed presses, and other essentials that go along with fine art printmaking. My little 13x24" press was over $3,000.00, and was custom made to my specification by Griffin Press. I charge between $140 and $400 for some of my prints depending on size and the amount of time put into the image. This is mainly because I keep my editions down to no more than 25, and once those are done I gouge my plate, or strike it so that no more of those images can be made.

Now I also make greeting cards on my printer with some of my other art work, but never with any of my fine art prints. I call those cards reproduction prints. I have given thought to having reproduction prints made of some of my larger pieces of art work on canvas by professionals in that field to make them more affordable to those that could not buy an orignial. Then again I would keep the reproductions down to a minimum number of about 100. Making affordable work is important to me also. But the difference between what all of us are doing by keeping the runs at low numbers and what you can buy at WalMart that has had 100's or thousands made is a wide gap.

The work that Thrash and T.Wagner do is fine art, but of a different medium than what I do, and what you and other digital artists do. Those are new and exciting mediums in the art world. Instead of a brush, or other traditional tools the computer and printer are just another tool for creating. Those are also becoming recognized forms of fine art, and all of you that work in those mediums are creating your own traditions.

Fine art printmakers have had that name for thousands of years, and their traditional form of creating is very different from anything else that is or has been done just as digital is. There is no problem with someone calling their work reproduction prints, and as you said at $10 a pop I wouldn't squawk either...lol I have some of those reproduction prints myself that I have bought from artists in that field, but as you do they do not call the fine art prints. So, the bump in the road is not over the word print, it is over the connotation of misrepresenting them as fine art prints. If you read this whole thread then you are aware of the differences I have pointed out.

The bottom line of what I have been trying to get across is that I enjoy the work that Thrash and T.Wagner are doing, and I enjoy digital work also. Being called a pedant didn't really bother me, because I am broad minded when it comes to any art form. It is just misrepresentation that I get riled up about.

We had a member, Cleo, that was making wonderful work from melted crayons, and I would love to have one of his pieces. Joe Majury does encaustic work, which is also a very old form of art, and I do have one of his framed on my wall. My collection of art is as eclectic as that of my music. I even have a signed limited edition "Spawn" reproduction print....lol Oh and a "Vamparilla" one also :D I am 49 years old, and if you guys think I am crazy you can imagine what people of my age and in my family think...lol Thankfully the word eccentric exsist for artist:evil: :angel: Otherwise we would all be locked up in an asylum as they used to do with people that exhibited unusual habits or tastes.

I have one last thing to say then I am getting back to my work. At first this thread got under my skin, but I have found it a refreshing intellectual debate over the past week, and I have learned a lot from all of you.

Shortboy
02-25-2003, 12:18 PM
Don't think your crazy cause you have the Spawn and Vampiella art, I'm 44 and still collect comics!:p I quess I'm doomed to love art in all of it's forms. I've actually done many comic caracter commissions over the years and actually really enjoy it. I suppose I interpreted the thread too much to imply in some way that people that participated in this type of 'printing' were misleading customers, and I just wanted to convey the great lenghts I go to to make sure my customers know what their getting. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Actually I've just raised my price to $15 a piece as my art supply prices just went up. :mad: :p I'll never get rich at this, but I just love the feeling I get when someone actually wants to take a piece of my art home. That's the 'juice' for me.:D

sciartist
02-25-2003, 01:41 PM
This is a turning in to a very interesting thread. Here is something I've found and would like comments on. It is from the Maryland Printmakers site. Looks like they may actually see what Thrash is doing as printmaking though it be a modern version. I've seen many Printmaking groups are allow digital printmakers in and digital prints are allowed into many printmaking shows. What are your opinions on this, and how does this fit into the definition of fine art print that has been referred to here.

Anyhow, here is what I found on the Maryland Printmakers site:

"Innovative Techniques
Other printing processes may include photocopy art, computer generated imagery, offset-lithography mixed media, artists' books, and sculptural or three-dimensional prints. These methods often incorporate glass, metal, wood, fiber, ceramics, and plastic."

Shortboy
02-25-2003, 02:54 PM
In the broad sense of the action, to print something, I would agree that what I do is making a print, but I would never associate it with what I believe is the fine art of printing. The basic reason I say this is that what I do in the printing area only requires very minimal skill. I scan the completed art into a digital form making adjustments to the detail I want for the piece. I then size it in Photoshop, and print it. By comparison, what I consider fine art printing is an art all to itself. It requirese a great deal of skill to be good at it. I admire their work and would love to have my art done by a professional, but I just can't afford it. My art is attractive to art lovers with a small budget. They can afford it and I can sell it cheap to cover my art supplies. In the end, I feel, art should be seen and enjoyed and anything that facilitates this is a good thing for the art world and other artists.
From completely a marketing standpoint it would be hard for me to justify a big budget for printing. I'm only locally known and although I have won a few contests I don't feel I have the exposure I would need to sell a large number of professional prints.

sassybird
02-25-2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by sciartist
This is a turning in to a very interesting thread. Here is something I've found and would like comments on. It is from the Maryland Printmakers site. Looks like they may actually see what Thrash is doing as printmaking though it be a modern version. I've seen many Printmaking groups are allow digital printmakers in and digital prints are allowed into many printmaking shows. What are your opinions on this, and how does this fit into the definition of fine art print that has been referred to here.

Anyhow, here is what I found on the Maryland Printmakers site:

"Innovative Techniques
Other printing processes may include photocopy art, computer generated imagery, offset-lithography mixed media, artists' books, and sculptural or three-dimensional prints. These methods often incorporate glass, metal, wood, fiber, ceramics, and plastic."

Many printmakers make use of photocopiers to transfer their original work on to a plate with the use of gum arabic and denatured alcohol. I have done this myself.

Printing is advancing all the time, and it makes work more affordable for buyers. Digital, the work that Thrash and T.Wagner do all are printing processes, but though they are fine art they do not fall into the fine art printmaking category. They are new fields all their own. For a printmakers guild to recognize other forms of printing is great, but I lay odds that they too would not put them into the category of fine art prints.

There has to be a line drawn there, because as Shortboy said the techniques that fine art printmakers use take years and years to learn and perfect as much as they are able to. Plates take weeks to months to complete at times, and the inking and whiping for each print is time consuming. You never will see anything so wonderful as seeing a printmaker pull their first print from a finished plate and the utter joy that lights up their whole face. In the time that Thrash can run off prints from a xerox machine and complete his work on them I would still be in the process of developing my image, with the use of grounds, acid dips, scraping and burnishing things that appear that I don't want in the print etc.... It is like giving birth...lol At times the pain from mistakes are like heavy contractions, and when things go smoothly you can catch your breath while waiting for the next time consuming part to come along.

Take a look at my website to see some of my prints, and if you want to know what it took to make a particular one I will happily explain the process. I have been working on an intaglio article for two months. It probably won't be finished for another two months because documenting the process is a task in itself. There is no form of printing that takes more physical energy than fine art printmaking, and none that take he calculations of timing acid dips to get a certain amount of bite on a plate. I sometimes do up to 20 acid dips on one plate before I am satisfied. All of that together is a good amount of work. That is one reason why the fine art printmakers are just a fraction of the whole art world. Most people do not have the patiences for it, or they are unable to remember all the steps with all the grounds, acids, and other techniques. I have been doing this for 10 years now, and I still have a lot to learn.

Thrash
02-25-2003, 09:46 PM
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/25-Feb-2003/16703-cherrytree.jpg

"Cherry Tree at Plante-a-Biau" by Theodore Rousseau, 1862, cliche verre print, 8x10.

Here's a collection of Barbizon prints, many of them cliches verres http://appletonmuseum.org/exhibitions/barbizon/9701photoalbum.cfm

Using copier machines to make prints is perhaps best compared to the use of the cliche verre process of the Barbizon painters. In any collection of Barbizon prints or book of them, these take their place beside etchings, woodcuts, lithographs, and hand-colored etchings, and no great distinction is made. Technically (and that is where much of this talk is hung up) they are simply contact-photographs, just as Xeroxes are a type of photograph.

Here is a useful article:

Though the clichť verre is usually considered to have been invented in 1853 by Constant Dutilleux and Charles Desavary, Michael Ware has pointed out that Fox Talbot's earliest work was actually a form of this genre: "It isn't perhaps widely known that some of the very first silver prints on paper by WHF Talbot were of this kind [cliche verre], made before his camera negatives: lacking adequate graphic talents himself, Talbot had an artist prepare cliche verre plates, then he printed these using his new (in 1834-5) Photogenic Drawing process. He called them 'photogenic etchings'."

There can be now doubt, however, that the principal work done with the cliche verre involved primarily French artists and photographers. A number of French artists, including Corot, Daubigny, Delacroix, Millet and Rousseau, worked with the process. A folio of 40 cliche works by these artists was published by Maurice LeGarrec in 1921, and one copy was put on sale on the web for 36,500 British pounds. It should be noted, however, that of the artists mentioned it was only Corot who worked consistently in this medium and produced major work specifically for it.

Artists worked with blackened glass plates upon which they etched with a needle the drawings which they wished to reproduce. The glass plate then functioned as a negative Ė the etched portions reproduced as black lines on sensitized paper while the blackened areas of the plate served to create a white background. The overriding problem with the traditional cliche verre method, as described above, is one which has kept it from being seriously pursued by photographers. For while the printing method itself is a contact printing process and therefore photographic, the subject content; i.e., the drawing, is drafted by hand and is thus has nothing at all to do with photography. This is a serious fault and one which has led many photographers and critics to dismiss the cliche verre out of hand as no more than a *******ized hybrid of art and photography.

The truth is that the cliche verre was originally conceived by artists as an inexpensive means to reproduce drawings. As such, its function has largely been supplanted by lithography. The lithograph, however, is incapable of producing the wide tonal range that is possible in photographic printing. As Paviot noted, "The special attraction which distinguishes the cliche verre from all other techniques lies in the diversity of printing possibilities. These variations which are difficult or even impossible to create when printing an engraving, etching or lithograph, make it possible to produce a version which is distinct from the original, such as reversed, transformed or revised version of the artist's work."

In my own work, I have developed a variation on the traditional cliche verre method which reestablishes the connection of the content (the drawing) to photography. To accomplish this, I make use of digital imaging. I first scan a black & white print or transparency, then open the image in Photoshop and use native and/or third party filters to convert the image to a line drawing. I then output the resulting image as an enlarged negative. This negative can then be used to create a cliche verre image on ordinary silver bromide paper or can be used with alternative process emulsions, such as cyanotype or gum. (The images shown here are done in cyanotype.) This method has an added advantage for those photographers like myself who do not possess the drafting skills needed to produce successful drawings by hand. http://www.frank-mcadam.com/cliche.htm

sassybird
02-26-2003, 08:10 AM
I have read about this process also, and found it fascinating. One of the more modern variations on this is the solar plate where negatives taken by the artists of their work, or an enhanced photo through the development process is etched into the plate with light. This is a very interesting technique. Some printmakers use ghost prints under or over these solar etchings also, and some of the results are startling That is something you might consider trying, Thrash.

It just goes to show you how much we can learn from the old masters :D That is why I love art history. If you have any other pics to show us please do. I will dig into my archives and pull out some also.

Did you know that Whistler was primarily a printmaker? He used a drypoint technique, and his work greatly influenced what I do today. I use the acids and grounds, but I also love just going at a plate with my needle. The raised burr gives everthing a rather softened look after whiping the plate and pulling the print. I also get some nice plate tone with this technique.

This is turning out to be a nice educational thread.

(edited for further thought)