Re: gum question

[Diana Bloomfield <dhbloomfield@bellsouth.net>]

Hi Judy,

I did size the image I attached, but the one-coat image I did  
yesterday-- no, I had not sized it, nor did I shrink the paper  
first.  I was working from a toy camera negative that I'd made larger  
digitally, so I really just wanted to try a coat to see if the image  
itself would just be too indistinct to work with, before I went to  
the trouble to shrink and size. So, yes, this was actually on  
"virgin" paper.  I do wonder, though, if that's why (in my  
experience, at least) the heavier weight Fabriano works so well-- the  
nap isn't raised so much like on the lighter weight.  I hadn't  
thought about that.  Even on heavier paper that I have given a hot  
shrink first, the results tend to be smoother, and I always have less  
trouble, than on the lighter weight.  It certainly seems to have a  
different feel to it than the lighter weight Fabriano, which I like  
much better.

Diana


On Jun 8, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Diana Bloomfield wrote:
>
> > .... So, while digital technology has opened up all kinds of  
> > possibilities-- in some ways-- I think there are people out there  
> > who just don't know what to think when they see something that  
> > doesn't look like it's "supposed to" (ie, big, colorful, digital).
> Generally speaking, art crit today and probably the galleries, are  
> run by the class dummy...  I remember in the long long ago when we  
> had "art talk fever" (artists/critics and related panel discussions  
> practically around the clock) in NYC & CAA (maybe while some folks  
> here today were in kindergarten?)... again and again on a panel of  
> art critics the "star" would mention how he (always a "he") had  
> been doing an MFA at Yale (one of the first & most prestigious  
> MFAs) and, dismayed to find he couldn't cut it with the other  
> students as an *artist,* became a critic (usually stated in so many  
> words).  I don't know if dealers (now called "gallerists" -- yuck!)  
> had the same background -- tho maybe they were going for an MBA?).  
> In any event, they may know what they can sell (or WANT to sell),  
> but lack the last word from Olympus on "art."  This, Diana, is a  
> dilemma I've heard from several photographers -- and probably goes  
> back to the first photographs (Adam & Eve and that serpent !). It  
> happens to painters,too -- the dealer doesn't like the "new" work !
>
> New topic: Re the beauty of Diana's one coat on the Fabriano -- I  
> don't recall, Diana, if you said you sized the paper in advance?   
> Maybe on that heavy Fabriano shrinking/sizing didn't raise the nap  
> the way it tends to, or maybe you didn't give the ususal hot shrink  
> first, so the paper was less ruffled up ? or you actually coated  
> "virgin" paper?
>
> IME, you get one free coat on many papers before you need a size --  
> the problem being that if you haven't pre-shrunk, you can't re- 
> register for a 2nd coat (unless, if I recall correctly, you're Sam  
> Wang).
>
> That's because, as I understand the paper-making process, there's  
> usually a final smoothing roller plus a finishing size of some  
> sort... Then wetting the paper (either to shrink or for the first  
> coat) raises the nap again, unless you've sized. You get away with  
> the first coat, but the raised nap spoils the next.
>
> Or that's been my experience and understanding -- that most papers  
> can do a single coat with no added size, but when the nap is  
> raised, the 2nd coat is spoiled. (Tho this probably varies with the  
> paper, the mix, the relative amount of gum, the particular gum &  
> brand of paint, et al.)
>
> Finally, re clay as color (and breakfast?).  There used to be a  
> fellow on the list with an evocative name I can't think of now,  
> from (I think) a Scandinavian country who dug up his own pigments  
> from the roadside...  I think several folks were thus inspired. (I  
> almost was, but fought it.)
>
> Judy