Today's postings
- [Baren 37772] Re: Hypothetical question ... (Dave Bull)
- [Baren 37773] Re: New Baren Digest (HTML) V46 #4657 (Jan 1, 2009) ("Shelley Hagan")
- [Baren 37774] Re: Hypothetical question ... (Graham Scholes)
- [Baren 37775] Baren Member blogs: Update Notification (Blog Manager)
Message 1
From: Dave Bull
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:26:22 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37772] Re: Hypothetical question ...
Send Message: To this poster
Maria wrote:
> However, the "net-generation" has grown up accustomed
> to getting things "off the net" for free, without ever giving a
> thought to
> copyright, intellectual property, creative licensing, and such foreign
> and
> antiquated concepts.
Yes, indeed; the game has completely changed, and this particular genie
does not want to be stuffed back into his bottle.
If your 'product' is something that can be transmitted from place to
place digitally, you're toast. My local newspaper is now on its last
legs, my friend the guitarist Dejima-san has nearly given up producing
CDs, and there has been a blood-bath in New York book publishers over
the past few months, as they frantically try to keep their business
model together as it crumbles around them.
Where this is all going to take us is of course still not clear. The
pessimists will tell us that people will no longer create content if it
is all going to be simply stolen from them, and that we are in for a
cultural collapse. Optimists will reply that as 'getting $' is not the
primary motivation for humans creating stuff, that we'll find a way
through.
In our particular case - woodblock printmaking - I think this whole
thing offers a unique opportunity. Our product can be 'imitated'
digitally, but not 'cloned'. Perfect! We couldn't _dream_ for a better
situation!
Let your stuff fly free out there, and do what you can to spread it
around as much as possible. And then just 'sit back' and wait for the
orders ...
Not!
The first part is OK ... send the stuff out there. But as Maria pointed
out in her follow-up post, the second part just won't happen by itself.
In that sense though, _absolutely nothing has changed_, because it
never did happen 'by itself'.
Over the twenty years since I put my first print out there on the
market (hey, it _is_ exactly twenty years now!) an awful lot of prints
have left my benches to find new homes all over the world. I have no
way to tell exactly what motivated each of those people to collect my
work, but I would wager that in an overwhelming amount of cases, it was
because they learned something about _me_ - not the prints - that made
them feel like they wanted to take that item home and make it part of
their life.
That doesn't just 'happen'. Maria has shared with us how she works
incredibly hard at building a personal contact with people, driving a
zillion miles a year, sitting in her little white tent for day after
day, and with her website, where people can get to see the 'real
person'.
I don't have a little white tent, and mostly do it through the web
site, but it's the same thing. I pour myself into that site (and my
exhibitions), and readers/viewers - the ones who have the patience for
it (and these are the ones you want!) - develop over time a sense of
the who and the what and the why ...
Some of these people, it may be one in ten, it may be one in a
thousand, or one in a million ... will want to make you part of their
life. They will purchase some of the work.
The net hasn't changed this fundamental reality at all. You still need
to 'connect'. But what it _has_ changed is the scope and scale of what
is possible. The front end of the process - getting your stuff in front
of eyeballs - is quickly becoming pretty much infinite.
Anyway, about the original question I was asking, I'm sorry that I
can't give you more details at present (the project being discussed
with me is still under wraps), but the general feedback I can give to
them is perhaps sort of clear. For content creators like us to want to
be involved, some of us would be willing to provide imagery, _provided_
there is a clear mechanism in place for the viewer to reach past the
image and learn about what and who is behind it.
But I will also let them know that there are people here who might see
this as an invention of the devil, and who will not participate.
Thanks for the responses!
Dave
> However, the "net-generation" has grown up accustomed
> to getting things "off the net" for free, without ever giving a
> thought to
> copyright, intellectual property, creative licensing, and such foreign
> and
> antiquated concepts.
Yes, indeed; the game has completely changed, and this particular genie
does not want to be stuffed back into his bottle.
If your 'product' is something that can be transmitted from place to
place digitally, you're toast. My local newspaper is now on its last
legs, my friend the guitarist Dejima-san has nearly given up producing
CDs, and there has been a blood-bath in New York book publishers over
the past few months, as they frantically try to keep their business
model together as it crumbles around them.
Where this is all going to take us is of course still not clear. The
pessimists will tell us that people will no longer create content if it
is all going to be simply stolen from them, and that we are in for a
cultural collapse. Optimists will reply that as 'getting $' is not the
primary motivation for humans creating stuff, that we'll find a way
through.
In our particular case - woodblock printmaking - I think this whole
thing offers a unique opportunity. Our product can be 'imitated'
digitally, but not 'cloned'. Perfect! We couldn't _dream_ for a better
situation!
Let your stuff fly free out there, and do what you can to spread it
around as much as possible. And then just 'sit back' and wait for the
orders ...
Not!
The first part is OK ... send the stuff out there. But as Maria pointed
out in her follow-up post, the second part just won't happen by itself.
In that sense though, _absolutely nothing has changed_, because it
never did happen 'by itself'.
Over the twenty years since I put my first print out there on the
market (hey, it _is_ exactly twenty years now!) an awful lot of prints
have left my benches to find new homes all over the world. I have no
way to tell exactly what motivated each of those people to collect my
work, but I would wager that in an overwhelming amount of cases, it was
because they learned something about _me_ - not the prints - that made
them feel like they wanted to take that item home and make it part of
their life.
That doesn't just 'happen'. Maria has shared with us how she works
incredibly hard at building a personal contact with people, driving a
zillion miles a year, sitting in her little white tent for day after
day, and with her website, where people can get to see the 'real
person'.
I don't have a little white tent, and mostly do it through the web
site, but it's the same thing. I pour myself into that site (and my
exhibitions), and readers/viewers - the ones who have the patience for
it (and these are the ones you want!) - develop over time a sense of
the who and the what and the why ...
Some of these people, it may be one in ten, it may be one in a
thousand, or one in a million ... will want to make you part of their
life. They will purchase some of the work.
The net hasn't changed this fundamental reality at all. You still need
to 'connect'. But what it _has_ changed is the scope and scale of what
is possible. The front end of the process - getting your stuff in front
of eyeballs - is quickly becoming pretty much infinite.
Anyway, about the original question I was asking, I'm sorry that I
can't give you more details at present (the project being discussed
with me is still under wraps), but the general feedback I can give to
them is perhaps sort of clear. For content creators like us to want to
be involved, some of us would be willing to provide imagery, _provided_
there is a clear mechanism in place for the viewer to reach past the
image and learn about what and who is behind it.
But I will also let them know that there are people here who might see
this as an invention of the devil, and who will not participate.
Thanks for the responses!
Dave
Message 2
From: "Shelley Hagan"
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:59:40 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37773] Re: New Baren Digest (HTML) V46 #4657 (Jan 1, 2009)
Send Message: To this poster
Hello,
My name is Shelley Hagan. I've lurked on Baren for a few months but this is
my first post. I have found the discussion David Bull's hypotheitical
arrangement interesting. My husband is a 'digital' artist whose work
is sometimes printed or (more often than not) used in an exclusively digital
context. Every now and then he complains about some fan who has taken
his images off the web and used them without his permission.
More often though there is a a great deal of respect for the final printed
piece. Young kids go to great lengths to have him sign their Magic cards or
do a sketch in their book. I think this underscores something which I
believe to be true. If art exists as a physical object then there will
always be an audience that will not be satisfied with a 72 dpi thumbnail
image. Even this young generation that is so digitally oriented recognizes
the value in a piece of art. So many images are purely digital these days
and in a way I think that adds value to the imagery that is 'real' and
tangible. There is a beauty and subtlety in a hand pulled print that cannot
readily be recreated in a digital painting. In my experience most people
(teens and adults alike) recognize this.
I am unclear as to whether this arrangement would be posted on the internet
or a digital display in an actual location. I lean towards the 'pro' side
especially if this is an installation in a building and not just floating
out there on the net. But even on the internet there are sophisticated ways
of protecting content from being downloaded and reused. By displaying your
work on the internet you open up access to markets you would never have
access to otherwise.
Just my 2 cents. Hello again to you all and I look forward to getting to
know you.
Shelley Hagan
My name is Shelley Hagan. I've lurked on Baren for a few months but this is
my first post. I have found the discussion David Bull's hypotheitical
arrangement interesting. My husband is a 'digital' artist whose work
is sometimes printed or (more often than not) used in an exclusively digital
context. Every now and then he complains about some fan who has taken
his images off the web and used them without his permission.
More often though there is a a great deal of respect for the final printed
piece. Young kids go to great lengths to have him sign their Magic cards or
do a sketch in their book. I think this underscores something which I
believe to be true. If art exists as a physical object then there will
always be an audience that will not be satisfied with a 72 dpi thumbnail
image. Even this young generation that is so digitally oriented recognizes
the value in a piece of art. So many images are purely digital these days
and in a way I think that adds value to the imagery that is 'real' and
tangible. There is a beauty and subtlety in a hand pulled print that cannot
readily be recreated in a digital painting. In my experience most people
(teens and adults alike) recognize this.
I am unclear as to whether this arrangement would be posted on the internet
or a digital display in an actual location. I lean towards the 'pro' side
especially if this is an installation in a building and not just floating
out there on the net. But even on the internet there are sophisticated ways
of protecting content from being downloaded and reused. By displaying your
work on the internet you open up access to markets you would never have
access to otherwise.
Just my 2 cents. Hello again to you all and I look forward to getting to
know you.
Shelley Hagan
Message 3
From: Graham Scholes
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:19:52 GMT
Subject: [Baren 37774] Re: Hypothetical question ...
Send Message: To this poster
Dave Bull wrote:
> Anyway, about the original question I was asking, I'm sorry that I
> can't give you more details at present (the project being discussed
> with me is still under wraps), but the general feedback I can give
> to them is perhaps sort of clear.
Is that like sort of foggy, misty, not certain. All very vague....
which has me wondering.
> For content creators like us to want to be involved, some of us
> would be willing to provide imagery, _provided_ there is a clear
> mechanism in place for the viewer to reach past the image and learn
> about what and who is behind it.
Ya, I call it crossing the “I‘s” and dotting the “T‘s”
> But I will also let them know that there are people here who might
> see this as an invention of the devil, and who will not participate.
You can’t pass judgement on anyone when all the facts have not been
clearly defined and explained.
As I don’t ... and I bet many .... have a clue what you are trying to
explain, then I think it might be discretionary to pass judgement when
your audience knows all the facts... “mechanics” ... of this thread.
Just a thought.
Graham
Digest Appendix
Postings made on [Baren] members' blogs
over the past 24 hours ...
Subject: 2009 Print Makers Calendar
Posted by: Kathe Welch
The Four Oceans Press 2009 Print Makers Calendar is here. This is our biggest project to date and we are really excited about how great it turned out.  The front cover. The Calendar highlights the work of 12 awesome Print Makers. The prints are all part of our Four Seasons Exchange Series. Kimberly Landers Mark Knot Mary Grassell Heather Piazza Alynn Guerra Jacqui Dunham Laima Rozkalns Hilary Williams Diane Cutter Woody Miller Melissa West Kathe Welch |
This item is taken from the blog Kathe Welch.
'Reply' to Baren about this item.
Subject: Pig finished
Posted by: Amie Roman
|
I spent the last few days finishing off the pig print, and it's finally done today. The more I work with the MDF and the Dremel tool, the happier I am with them. This print was done with the Daniel Smith water soluble relief inks. I am very happy with their performance, too. I don't think that those inks were slipping during my Xocoatl print, but I am now positive that it was the black linoleum stretching instead. It's printed onto cream Rising Stonehenge paper; the colours of the photos are a little off. So if you look at the paper as being cream, that'll give you an idea of what the print should look like; these photos are a little too cool/blue. The second colour was a pink made by mixing some permanent red and a little yellow ochre into the pink I'd used in the first layer.  The fourth layer is about 50/50 ink/medium mix, with mostly yellow ochre and a very little amount of burnt umber. I wanted the pink to come through more than if I'd just used yellow ochre straight out of the tube. . . .[Long item has been trimmed at this point. The full blog entry can be viewed here] |
This item is taken from the blog Burnishings.
'Reply' to Baren about this item.