Working on presentation of these wormy vortex drawings. The physical, printing-and-display part is boring. Most of these are test prints, eventually they'll all be on Epson's 100% rag paper, which is a neutral surface, surprisingly not arty-looking at all. And framed like the pieces cropped at the top and bottom of the photo. (Computer work done in an ordinary program like MSPaint or Paintbrush becomes more problematic when you treat it like a sacred museum object, I swear it's not just for retail reasons. Evidence of a certain financial commitment to what's perceived to be cultural ephemera. Plus they just look more embodied, and therefore more interesting in person.) After printing a couple I noticed the inked outlines were mushy--not crisp like they're supposed to be. Was it the ink bleeding into the rag paper? No, my new-ish printer defaults to "edge smoothing." I can't believe I just realized this. Drawings done in pixel-y programs should have sharply pixeled edges, so they look like what's on the screen. Edge smoothing gives everything that "resampled in Photoshop" look--ugh. Not acceptable.
i know you have an epson printer and you are using epson paper products. are you sure they are all sealed?
Sealed by me or sealed at the factory?
i am of the understanding that epson has factory sealed paper specific for their printers. including cotton rag archival-esque art paper.
That's what I'm using. I tried out another brand of 100% rag "digital" paper (Arches) just to see the difference and the print rollers smeared the ink.
do you have a slower printer speed? sounds like a trial and error process.
You know, I think it's great showing things jest as they are, though these vortexes are kind of acceptable to framing. The only problem is when outside the studio, or out of one's own abode, how do you deal with this icon-encasing physical phenomenon? Also, my own experience is that when thinking of framing something, especially a drawing, after working for a while (a) preconception sets in--the framing system, somehow (harshly, I'll say) conjoins the subject--the frame being inbuilt into the thought of next work.
A reckless person wouldn't think like this remaining, probably, perfectly, safe.
When you become aware of the frame dilemma, I feel there is a need to come back to the question--why do we frame? is framing an appendage? does this imply adverse expenditure to the work? While framing is useful to draw people in, into the known experience, how do we work that--before a work is made, or are we susceptible to the bamboozling that thinking of framing sets us already framed?
That's my quibble, but not a real response, but your post somehow brings up some of my own dilemmas with frames, for work that can affort them.
There seems to be some acceptable framing device among the hierarchy, big, mighty small, or slam the frames together--the latter kind of hegemony--build it so the high and long so nobody will ever consider noticing. Or framing words and sentences--I like that because it's acceptable in the vein of rigor (so obviously that too becomes questionable--and only adds)?
i guess when someone buys your work they are going to frame it. Or are there archival alternatives--undetectable forcefields, or a concept of multiples that are ever replenished in contract (?)... issues that were, I guess, once, ramped discourse--but now...
.... good balance may be to forget the frame as an integral part of the work unless it is, and to work outside the frame when it is not, or when thinking contradicts itself--what ever way may be may be just the thing thing-- refreshing to go with it.
Er i think i just said nothing. I was framed!
Bill, it's definitely trial and error, even with the Epson paper. When they first introduced the archival ink printer they sold a product called "archival matte paper." After selling it for a few years they changed the name to Enhanced Matte paper, around the time they introduced the all-cotton rag line. I assume it means the earlier stuff had some acidic content, but never found out the explanation for the Orwellian name change.
The Arches I used isn't on that official tie-in list you linked to (Crane's, Somerset etc). I may have selected the wrong paper in the computer's print menu. I'm happy with the way the Epson looks so I'll only do trial and error with the Arches if I run out and can't get to the store.
Re framing: I have a guy here who makes museum-quality frames that are integral to this work--he's a subcontractor, fabricator, what have you. I'm only showing the pushpin drawngs as work in process--they look OK online but need that extra layer in person, trust me. The framing is to physically protect the piece but also to discourage future framing decisions that might not be right for the work. And also, as I said or meant to say, these aren't fine lithographs, they are made with intellectually suspect equipment and benefit somewhat from the shock of seeing MSPaintbrush drawings surrounded by the class signifier and set of institutional assumptions framing represents. It's part of my studio thought process.
From a retail end it doesn't matter anyway because works on paper are B-list art in the medieval mind of the collector.
i think they may be more stable than you are publicly acknowledging or personally allowing. and do compare with "fine" lithography. and do deserve to be preserved in archival framing and mat mounting for their protection. im looking at the photographic and museum fields for leading archival standards and esthetics. as the least intrusive esthetically and most effective archivally. i like your framers work.
Thanks. Just to clarify, I think they are stable, my understanding is pigmented inks--ground-up rocks--last longer than dyes. As for the lithography comparison, the print surface, ink saturation, etc look just as good to me as lithographs. When I said "intellectually suspect" I meant in the sense that the drawing tool, the computer program, was originally intended to make corporate clip art but is pushed into some further direction, whereas lithography has all these ancient artisanal assumptions of closeness to the artist's hand, delicately bleeding, etc. The latter we expect to be framed--the former is still a great unknown in terms of being a new medium.
|
Working on presentation of these wormy vortex drawings. The physical, printing-and-display part is boring. Most of these are test prints, eventually they'll all be on Epson's 100% rag paper, which is a neutral surface, surprisingly not arty-looking at all. And framed like the pieces cropped at the top and bottom of the photo. (Computer work done in an ordinary program like MSPaint or Paintbrush becomes more problematic when you treat it like a sacred museum object, I swear it's not just for retail reasons. Evidence of a certain financial commitment to what's perceived to be cultural ephemera. Plus they just look more embodied, and therefore more interesting in person.) After printing a couple I noticed the inked outlines were mushy--not crisp like they're supposed to be. Was it the ink bleeding into the rag paper? No, my new-ish printer defaults to "edge smoothing." I can't believe I just realized this. Drawings done in pixel-y programs should have sharply pixeled edges, so they look like what's on the screen. Edge smoothing gives everything that "resampled in Photoshop" look--ugh. Not acceptable.
- tom moody 10-05-2005 10:10 am
i know you have an epson printer and you are using epson paper products. are you sure they are all sealed?
- bill 10-05-2005 4:32 pm
Sealed by me or sealed at the factory?
- tom moody 10-05-2005 6:00 pm
i am of the understanding that epson has factory sealed paper specific for their printers. including cotton rag archival-esque art paper.
- bill 10-05-2005 6:07 pm
That's what I'm using. I tried out another brand of 100% rag "digital" paper (Arches) just to see the difference and the print rollers smeared the ink.
- tom moody 10-05-2005 6:10 pm
do you have a slower printer speed? sounds like a trial and error process.
- bill 10-05-2005 6:20 pm
You know, I think it's great showing things jest as they are, though these vortexes are kind of acceptable to framing. The only problem is when outside the studio, or out of one's own abode, how do you deal with this icon-encasing physical phenomenon? Also, my own experience is that when thinking of framing something, especially a drawing, after working for a while (a) preconception sets in--the framing system, somehow (harshly, I'll say) conjoins the subject--the frame being inbuilt into the thought of next work.
A reckless person wouldn't think like this remaining, probably, perfectly, safe.
When you become aware of the frame dilemma, I feel there is a need to come back to the question--why do we frame? is framing an appendage? does this imply adverse expenditure to the work? While framing is useful to draw people in, into the known experience, how do we work that--before a work is made, or are we susceptible to the bamboozling that thinking of framing sets us already framed?
That's my quibble, but not a real response, but your post somehow brings up some of my own dilemmas with frames, for work that can affort them.
There seems to be some acceptable framing device among the hierarchy, big, mighty small, or slam the frames together--the latter kind of hegemony--build it so the high and long so nobody will ever consider noticing. Or framing words and sentences--I like that because it's acceptable in the vein of rigor (so obviously that too becomes questionable--and only adds)?
i guess when someone buys your work they are going to frame it. Or are there archival alternatives--undetectable forcefields, or a concept of multiples that are ever replenished in contract (?)... issues that were, I guess, once, ramped discourse--but now...
.... good balance may be to forget the frame as an integral part of the work unless it is, and to work outside the frame when it is not, or when thinking contradicts itself--what ever way may be may be just the thing thing-- refreshing to go with it.
Er i think i just said nothing. I was framed!
- brent hallard (guest) 10-05-2005 6:25 pm
Bill, it's definitely trial and error, even with the Epson paper. When they first introduced the archival ink printer they sold a product called "archival matte paper." After selling it for a few years they changed the name to Enhanced Matte paper, around the time they introduced the all-cotton rag line. I assume it means the earlier stuff had some acidic content, but never found out the explanation for the Orwellian name change.
The Arches I used isn't on that official tie-in list you linked to (Crane's, Somerset etc). I may have selected the wrong paper in the computer's print menu. I'm happy with the way the Epson looks so I'll only do trial and error with the Arches if I run out and can't get to the store.
- tom moody 10-05-2005 6:33 pm
Re framing: I have a guy here who makes museum-quality frames that are integral to this work--he's a subcontractor, fabricator, what have you. I'm only showing the pushpin drawngs as work in process--they look OK online but need that extra layer in person, trust me. The framing is to physically protect the piece but also to discourage future framing decisions that might not be right for the work. And also, as I said or meant to say, these aren't fine lithographs, they are made with intellectually suspect equipment and benefit somewhat from the shock of seeing MSPaintbrush drawings surrounded by the class signifier and set of institutional assumptions framing represents. It's part of my studio thought process.
- tom moody 10-05-2005 6:50 pm
From a retail end it doesn't matter anyway because works on paper are B-list art in the medieval mind of the collector.
- tom moody 10-05-2005 6:57 pm
i think they may be more stable than you are publicly acknowledging or personally allowing. and do compare with "fine" lithography. and do deserve to be preserved in archival framing and mat mounting for their protection. im looking at the photographic and museum fields for leading archival standards and esthetics. as the least intrusive esthetically and most effective archivally. i like your framers work.
- bill 10-05-2005 7:04 pm
Thanks. Just to clarify, I think they are stable, my understanding is pigmented inks--ground-up rocks--last longer than dyes. As for the lithography comparison, the print surface, ink saturation, etc look just as good to me as lithographs. When I said "intellectually suspect" I meant in the sense that the drawing tool, the computer program, was originally intended to make corporate clip art but is pushed into some further direction, whereas lithography has all these ancient artisanal assumptions of closeness to the artist's hand, delicately bleeding, etc. The latter we expect to be framed--the former is still a great unknown in terms of being a new medium.
- tom moody 10-05-2005 7:14 pm