Today's postings
- [Baren 34857] Re: Baren Digest (old) V42 #4195 ("Marilynn Smith")
- [Baren 34858] Re: Latest print (L Cass)
- [Baren 34859] Re: Latest print ("Mike Lyon")
- [Baren 34860] Re: Latest print (Formschnider # aol.com)
- [Baren 34861] What is an artist? was Re: Thanks again: Latest print ("Lee Churchill")
- [Baren 34862] Re: What is an artist? was Re: Thanks again: Latest print (rsimola # netzero.net)
- [Baren 34863] Re: New Baren Digest (HTML) V42 #4193 (Jan 14, 2008) (Lynn Starun)
- [Baren 34864] Re: New Baren Digest (HTML) V42 #4193 (Jan 14, 2008) (Charles Morgan)
Message 1
From: "Marilynn Smith"
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:29:21 -0800
Subject: [Baren 34857] Re: Baren Digest (old) V42 #4195
Send Message: To this poster
Dave, I think all of us who spend our time creating in the arts know those
special inspirational moments. They are what it is all about. I know a lot
of my stuff is not so grand, but when I hit it I have such a thrill.
Unserstandably you are more cautious than many because you have a set
audience that buys from you a standard of expectation. You need them to
make that mortgage payment. In life I have seen many people held back by
fear, not just those doing art work, but those who could have more and just
are afraid to go for it! There is nothing wrong with pulling back and being
safe. You, however, should go out there into that deep water again because
you have what it takes.
Marilynn
special inspirational moments. They are what it is all about. I know a lot
of my stuff is not so grand, but when I hit it I have such a thrill.
Unserstandably you are more cautious than many because you have a set
audience that buys from you a standard of expectation. You need them to
make that mortgage payment. In life I have seen many people held back by
fear, not just those doing art work, but those who could have more and just
are afraid to go for it! There is nothing wrong with pulling back and being
safe. You, however, should go out there into that deep water again because
you have what it takes.
Marilynn
Message 2
From: L Cass
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:37:34 -0500
Subject: [Baren 34858] Re: Latest print
Send Message: To this poster
>"This current print was quite a nice stroke of inspiration, and the
>instant I got the concept I knew that there was a winner there. I
>doubt that I will be so ... lucky? ... very often. But I guess
>that's the name of the game, isn't it ... pressing forward and
>trying to hit the spot as often as we can!"
>
Well, there you are, Dave - spoken like a true artist!!
Louise
www.lcassart.com
Message 3
From: "Mike Lyon"
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:02:44 -0600
Subject: [Baren 34859] Re: Latest print
Send Message: To this poster
You should feel confident that your hit/miss ratio will improve with
practice in exactly the same way your printing skills have improved with
practice.
I agree with everyone else -- "River in Winter" is a HIT! Sure, it echoes
to some 19C and 20C sources, but damn near EVERYthing we do is 'derivative'
(except for the 'lucky' stuff) -- this is a wonderful image, wonderful
color, wonderful object! Just excellent!!! More of this level and beyond
are just around the corner!
My 2 cents.
Mike Lyon
Kansas City, MO
http://mlyon.com
practice in exactly the same way your printing skills have improved with
practice.
I agree with everyone else -- "River in Winter" is a HIT! Sure, it echoes
to some 19C and 20C sources, but damn near EVERYthing we do is 'derivative'
(except for the 'lucky' stuff) -- this is a wonderful image, wonderful
color, wonderful object! Just excellent!!! More of this level and beyond
are just around the corner!
My 2 cents.
Mike Lyon
Kansas City, MO
http://mlyon.com
Message 4
From: Formschnider # aol.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:18:21 EST
Subject: [Baren 34860] Re: Latest print
Send Message: To this poster
to me the 'river water rapids' print works very well because it is the
correct % of craftmanship, skill & creativity. Today much of what passes as art
offen doen't work because the amount of craftsmanship is offen lacking.
I think this print is on the money so to speak.
correct % of craftmanship, skill & creativity. Today much of what passes as art
offen doen't work because the amount of craftsmanship is offen lacking.
I think this print is on the money so to speak.
Message 5
From: "Lee Churchill"
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:22:25 -0700
Subject: [Baren 34861] What is an artist? was Re: Thanks again: Latest print
Send Message: To this poster
Hey All,
I love this list; it makes me think pretty hard sometimes. :-) My
thoughts are a bit rambling but here they are anyway:
Reading Dave's email, I am struck by the fact that I am regularly
confused by what other people think of as "ART" and who considers
themselves an 'Artist'. In Canada the Artists' union, CARFAC, believes
that anyone who makes a living from, has an education in, or is
considered by their peers to be an artist is an artist.
Dave, as someone who lives off the proceeds of his prints, would be
considered an artist; I have a BFA but am not a very actively practicing
artist, and certainly don't live off my art, so I have trouble calling
myself one - but CARFAC would consider me an artist as well. So should
the person's own views on their 'status' get precedence? There are
plenty of artists who work for years quietly going about their business,
producing and living off their art, but have trouble calling themselves
"artist". While others trumpet themselves as artists but produce little
that is compelling and are gone quickly. Which ones are 'real' artists?
Are both? William Morris felt that 'waiting for inspiration' was a crock
and that any artist worth their salt had the essential skills so
ingrained that they didn't need to wait for inspiration (paraphrased).
I, personally, have real trouble feeling that anyone who is completely
unskilled as a craftsperson (the physical manipulation of materials is
the basis of art) can consider themselves an artist. A person who has no
idea how to play an instrument can't call themselves a musician so why
can people who have no idea how to handle materials get to call
themselves an artist? There, of course, is always room for
experimentation, but is it experimentation if a person off the street
starts whacking at a stone, then calls it a sculpture?? Or is it just a
cracked rock? If you have never taken an art class before but take a
half-day course in how to make a relief print can you call yourself a
print artist? I am learning to bind books but would never call myself a
bookbinder when to be such has traditionally entailed a 5-7 year
apprenticeship. Am I just being too conservative?
To my mind, some of the most amazing art in the world was made by taking
a simple idea and crafting it superbly - Vermeer's "Girl with a Pearl
Ear ring", Rembrandt's landscape and portrait prints, Caravaggio's
religious scenes, Degas' ballerinas. None of these were 'original'
ideas, other people had used those types of images before but the
artists brought the best of their craft to an image and while they
probably had no more intention than playing around and paying next
months rent, the images turned into something enduring.
In pensive confusion,
Lee.
I love this list; it makes me think pretty hard sometimes. :-) My
thoughts are a bit rambling but here they are anyway:
Reading Dave's email, I am struck by the fact that I am regularly
confused by what other people think of as "ART" and who considers
themselves an 'Artist'. In Canada the Artists' union, CARFAC, believes
that anyone who makes a living from, has an education in, or is
considered by their peers to be an artist is an artist.
Dave, as someone who lives off the proceeds of his prints, would be
considered an artist; I have a BFA but am not a very actively practicing
artist, and certainly don't live off my art, so I have trouble calling
myself one - but CARFAC would consider me an artist as well. So should
the person's own views on their 'status' get precedence? There are
plenty of artists who work for years quietly going about their business,
producing and living off their art, but have trouble calling themselves
"artist". While others trumpet themselves as artists but produce little
that is compelling and are gone quickly. Which ones are 'real' artists?
Are both? William Morris felt that 'waiting for inspiration' was a crock
and that any artist worth their salt had the essential skills so
ingrained that they didn't need to wait for inspiration (paraphrased).
I, personally, have real trouble feeling that anyone who is completely
unskilled as a craftsperson (the physical manipulation of materials is
the basis of art) can consider themselves an artist. A person who has no
idea how to play an instrument can't call themselves a musician so why
can people who have no idea how to handle materials get to call
themselves an artist? There, of course, is always room for
experimentation, but is it experimentation if a person off the street
starts whacking at a stone, then calls it a sculpture?? Or is it just a
cracked rock? If you have never taken an art class before but take a
half-day course in how to make a relief print can you call yourself a
print artist? I am learning to bind books but would never call myself a
bookbinder when to be such has traditionally entailed a 5-7 year
apprenticeship. Am I just being too conservative?
To my mind, some of the most amazing art in the world was made by taking
a simple idea and crafting it superbly - Vermeer's "Girl with a Pearl
Ear ring", Rembrandt's landscape and portrait prints, Caravaggio's
religious scenes, Degas' ballerinas. None of these were 'original'
ideas, other people had used those types of images before but the
artists brought the best of their craft to an image and while they
probably had no more intention than playing around and paying next
months rent, the images turned into something enduring.
In pensive confusion,
Lee.
Message 6
From: rsimola # netzero.net
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:51:26 -0800
Subject: [Baren 34862] Re: What is an artist? was Re: Thanks again: Latest print
Send Message: To this poster
Lee Churchill wrote:
> I, personally, have real trouble feeling that anyone who is completely
> unskilled as a craftsperson (the physical manipulation of materials is
> the basis of art) can consider themselves an artist. A person who has
> no idea how to play an instrument can’t call themselves a musician so
> why can people who have no idea how to handle materials get to call
> themselves an artist? There, of course, is always room for
> experimentation, but is it experimentation if a person off the street
> starts whacking at a stone, then calls it a sculpture?? Or is it just
> a cracked rock? If you have never taken an art class before but take a
> half-day course in how to make a relief print can you call yourself a
> print artist? I am learning to bind books but would never call myself
> a bookbinder when to be such has traditionally entailed a 5-7 year
> apprenticeship. Am I just being too conservative?
>
>
Lee,
If I have read your email correctly, I too believe that if the craft
isn't mastered, then an individual with the potential to become an
artist will never be able to reach that potential.
Bob
> I, personally, have real trouble feeling that anyone who is completely
> unskilled as a craftsperson (the physical manipulation of materials is
> the basis of art) can consider themselves an artist. A person who has
> no idea how to play an instrument can’t call themselves a musician so
> why can people who have no idea how to handle materials get to call
> themselves an artist? There, of course, is always room for
> experimentation, but is it experimentation if a person off the street
> starts whacking at a stone, then calls it a sculpture?? Or is it just
> a cracked rock? If you have never taken an art class before but take a
> half-day course in how to make a relief print can you call yourself a
> print artist? I am learning to bind books but would never call myself
> a bookbinder when to be such has traditionally entailed a 5-7 year
> apprenticeship. Am I just being too conservative?
>
>
Lee,
If I have read your email correctly, I too believe that if the craft
isn't mastered, then an individual with the potential to become an
artist will never be able to reach that potential.
Bob
Message 7
From: Lynn Starun
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:07:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Baren 34863] Re: New Baren Digest (HTML) V42 #4193 (Jan 14, 2008)
Send Message: To this poster
Hey, Charles,
I tried the shellac but I'm still getting the same
problem--the larger flat areas fade out in their
centers. It is a LITTLE better. I'm wondering if
it's that I'm using lithographic ink. The ink seemed
to roll out ok and it's oil based. I just don't have
any oil based relief printing ink. My original plan
had been to use pigment and paste Japanese style till
I saw how the MDF reacted to wetness. Maybe I should
just do the whole thing over using shina but I hate
do-overs!! Why oh why can't I just follow directions
without changing something!?!
Lynn
I tried the shellac but I'm still getting the same
problem--the larger flat areas fade out in their
centers. It is a LITTLE better. I'm wondering if
it's that I'm using lithographic ink. The ink seemed
to roll out ok and it's oil based. I just don't have
any oil based relief printing ink. My original plan
had been to use pigment and paste Japanese style till
I saw how the MDF reacted to wetness. Maybe I should
just do the whole thing over using shina but I hate
do-overs!! Why oh why can't I just follow directions
without changing something!?!
Lynn
Message 8
From: Charles Morgan
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:49:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Baren 34864] Re: New Baren Digest (HTML) V42 #4193 (Jan 14, 2008)
Send Message: To this poster
Lyn,
Sorry ... I cannot see your block or your prints, so it is hard for me to diagnose problems blind. But, I have a few more suggestions:
1) Clean the block well, and let it dry. Sand lightly again. Apply another coat of shellac and let dry well. Sand VERY lightly with 1000 grit sandpaper. Look at the surface under oblique light. If you see textured areas, sand lightly, apply more shellac, and let dry well. Sand VERY lightly with 1000 grit sandpaper. That should make the flats very, very, smooth, so the ink should adhere evenly. As long as you see textured areas in your flats, they will probably translate into differential inking and show up on your print. In all your sanding, be very careful not to round the edges ... keep everything FLAT.
2) If you are printing with a press, try putting some "make ready" on the back of the block. Get a stick of repositionable glue. Tear pieces of paper about the size of the light areas. You tear the paper shapes rather than cut them so the edges will be somewhat feathered, rather than sharp. Use a few dabs of the glue to glue the pieces of paper to the back of the block under the light printing areas. This will cause VERY minute bowing of the block where it is printing light. This is what letter press folks do.
3) If none of this works, try putting a piece of cheap fabric store felt on top of your paper before printing. That will cause the block to slightly emboss the paper, ensuring good paper to block contact.
4) Lithographic ink does go on in very thin coats because it is soooo sticky. You might try thinning it a bit with some easy wipe or with some artists grade linseed oil. Do not over do it, or you will fill in all your details. Perhaps you just need a bit more ink.
5) If you have very good registration set up (kentos or pin registration) try printing twice in order to fill in the light areas.
Each one of these is easier than re-carving the entire block. But after a while, the total time spent trying different solutions is not really worth it if you have an alternative. You have to decide how to proceed. Keep us posted.
Cheers .... Charles
Sorry ... I cannot see your block or your prints, so it is hard for me to diagnose problems blind. But, I have a few more suggestions:
1) Clean the block well, and let it dry. Sand lightly again. Apply another coat of shellac and let dry well. Sand VERY lightly with 1000 grit sandpaper. Look at the surface under oblique light. If you see textured areas, sand lightly, apply more shellac, and let dry well. Sand VERY lightly with 1000 grit sandpaper. That should make the flats very, very, smooth, so the ink should adhere evenly. As long as you see textured areas in your flats, they will probably translate into differential inking and show up on your print. In all your sanding, be very careful not to round the edges ... keep everything FLAT.
2) If you are printing with a press, try putting some "make ready" on the back of the block. Get a stick of repositionable glue. Tear pieces of paper about the size of the light areas. You tear the paper shapes rather than cut them so the edges will be somewhat feathered, rather than sharp. Use a few dabs of the glue to glue the pieces of paper to the back of the block under the light printing areas. This will cause VERY minute bowing of the block where it is printing light. This is what letter press folks do.
3) If none of this works, try putting a piece of cheap fabric store felt on top of your paper before printing. That will cause the block to slightly emboss the paper, ensuring good paper to block contact.
4) Lithographic ink does go on in very thin coats because it is soooo sticky. You might try thinning it a bit with some easy wipe or with some artists grade linseed oil. Do not over do it, or you will fill in all your details. Perhaps you just need a bit more ink.
5) If you have very good registration set up (kentos or pin registration) try printing twice in order to fill in the light areas.
Each one of these is easier than re-carving the entire block. But after a while, the total time spent trying different solutions is not really worth it if you have an alternative. You have to decide how to proceed. Keep us posted.
Cheers .... Charles