Re: "Tricolor gum printers" deconstructed
I probably shouldn't jump in here as I really know very little about actual gum printing (except for the excellent teaching of the gum over platinum course I took last fall with Kerik). I also appreciate Clay Harmon's gum over platinum information on the Unblinking Eye website. But I have been interested in gum printing for a while-- mostly just reading about it and seeing the work of other gum printers. So I'm interested in the tri-color gums and the difference between how a tri-color gum print might look, compared to 2 or more colors over cyanotype, and why someone might make that choice. I assume it's just easier, but I also assume there may be other reasons.. I had the opportunity, some months ago, of seeing DeCosse's gum prints in the John Stevenson gallery. At the time, I had no idea that Keith Taylor did the actual printing. I thought they were spectacular--and seemed almost heroic in the effort it must take to produce prints so exquisite. They were also very very different from gum prints I'd seen elsewhere over the years. So while I am sure that other factors are involved in the printing of those, I also wondered about the "true" tri-color gum layers he uses, as opposed to 2 gum layers over cyanotype others might use, and how that choice might effect his gum prints (or not). At any rate, I have also read Katharine's site, which I find helpful and informative, too. Katharine herself has answered some questions I've had in the past, and while I'm sure it's obvious to her how little I know about gum printing, she has always been forthcoming and generous with her knowledge and in her answers to my questions. So I think what she's asking is an interesting question and one I don't often see discussed. Why wouldn't everybody simply use cyanotype as the base layer? It makes sense to me, (and I've never gotten the impression--here or anywhere-- that this was somehow "cheating" or less worthy than using 3 actual layers of gum..) Obviously, though, there's a reason some wouldn't. I'm curious to know why those printers wouldn't, how their prints might appear in comparison, who those printers might be, and their approaches to their work. Gum printing seems to offer infinite possibilities. For those who are intimately familiar with gum printing, Katharine's question and the distinction she's making might seem pointless. For the rest of us, however, that distinction might prove useful--or, at the least, an interesting observation/comparison. Just my 2 cents. On Jan 28, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Keith Gerling wrote: Hey, I've got an idea. How about we just take Katherine at her word that
|