RE: "Tricolor gum printers" deconstructed
Sandy, I did not intend to imply that was in any way dishonest or ignoble to use cyanotype in a gum print, although I suppose I DID say that I "felt" is was cheating. Look, anybody wanting superlative results in a finished work would be silly not to investigate the use of cyanotype. But I'm not totally sure I am comfortable calling it a tri-color gum for whatever reasons. Although I have great respect for this list and contributors such as yourself and Chris and Sam, I'm not totally comfortable that the art market has ceded us with the right to define what is and what is not a gum print. I'm thinking particularly about two conversations I had with a couple of gallery owners (more lectures, really, on the "honesty of representation") when I showed them my gums that incorporated kallitype and/or vandyke. (I wish I had the E.J. Wall defense at the time). Anyway, I'm thinking now about "how much gum" does a gummist need for a gum print to be called gum (here would be a good place to insert a line about woodchucks chucking wood, if they could...) So let's say I lay down a red layer using a Uranium process, coat over that with cyanotype, and then finish it off with a anthoype using daisy-petal-yellow. If I coat a clear coat of gum over that, do I still have a "tri-color gum"? Keith -----Original Message----- From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu] Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 8:35 PM To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca Subject: RE: "Tricolor gum printers" deconstructed Using a cyanotype blue image as the base is not cheating in my opinion. In fact, I find the suggestion that this is cheating about as silly as the idea that the use of digital negatives to make carbon and platinum prints is cheating, which I have heard. It is simply a variation of the process and a print made with a cyanotype base is still a gum print IMHO. And the variation has a very long pedigree. E.J. Wall in his History of Three-Color Photography (1925) notes that people were making gum prints with a cyanotype base as early as 1904, and describes the working procedures in his section on tricolor gum. However, the absurdity that has been introduced into this discussion is the implication that folks like Chris Anderson and San Wang only know how to make three-color gum prints with a cyanotype base. Sam Wang was making three-color gum and cassein prints with gum and cassein blue layers as far back as I can remember, and if memory serves, Chris Anderson was also working primarily with a blue gum base before coming to Clemson and falling under Sam's evil influence. In fact, off the top of my head I would venture to suggest that Sam has probably made a lot more serious three-color gum prints with a blue gum base than KT. He worked that way for a long time and he has always been a fairly prolific printer. I think it is reasonable for folks to want to discuss the minor differences in look between prints with a blue gum base and those with a cyanotype base, but I personally find these differences too small to justify the remark made earlier that a three color print with a cyanotype base and two gum layers is not a real gum print. Sandy King At 5:39 PM -0600 1/28/07, Keith Gerling wrote: >I often print gum over cyanotype. And I love the work of Chris and Sam. >That said, I still cannot help but feel that using cyanotype for the first >layer IS cheating if one is going to call the final result a "gum print". >There is just so much more THERE when you incorporate cyanotype into the >mix. In one step you address two "problems" often inherent in the gum >process: one can (or at least I can) add much finer detail and far more >density. I'm by no means a Puritan when it comes to making images. I don't >believe in rules and I like to incorporate as many tricks and techniques as >I can. But still, when I have completed a set of gum-over cyanotypes, I >cannot help but come away from it with the thought that what I have here are >Colored Cyanotypes not Gum Prints. I'm not by any means suggesting that it >is dishonest in calling a cyanogum a gum print, but I am suggesting that we >remain sensitive to those that wish to remain "true" to the notion of "pure >gum". Speaking for myself, I think using cyanotype in gum is kind of like >turbo-charging your VW. Nothing wrong with it, plenty of people do it, it >sure packs a lot of punch - but don't go thinking you are operating a stock >vehicle. Dumb analogy, I know, but I've been spending far more time >addressing vehicular issues than photographic issues.... > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Diana Bloomfield [mailto:dhbloomfield@bellsouth.net] >Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 2:52 PM >To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca >Subject: 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 >> she is looking for people that approach the process as she does, >> which means >> LITERALLY "three colored gums". I was excluded because I use CMYK >> separations. As a person who uses gum in all sorts of >> configurations: with >> cyano, with vandyke, three and four gum layers, etc., I would >> venture to say >> that there is a heck of a lot more similarity between three and >> four color >> gum printing than there is between gum over cyanotype and this >> should be >> obvious to anyone that has explored the various options. Still, I >> didn't >> make the cut, and I'm not interpreting Katherine's motives as being >> sinister >> or "biased". >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu] >> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 8:07 AM >> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca >> Subject: Re:"Tricolor gum printers" deconstructed >> >> >> >> >> >> When I saw KT's survey my first reaction was, why in the hell would >> someone think it important to make a distinction between "true gum" >> prints and full color gum prints that use a cyanotype layer? Then I >> thought, wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Chris >> Anderson uses a cyanotype layer in her three-color prints, and she >> also is an unabashed proponent of the use of carefully designed >> curves? >> >> I have no idea what Katherine's true motives are, but hopefully she >> will at least provide the list with her definitive definition of a >> "true gum". >> >> Sandy King >> >> >> >>
|