[alt-photo] Re: another new gum...
Katharine Thayer
kthayer at pacifier.com
Tue Jun 22 14:20:44 GMT 2010
Hi Paul,
I've been busy and preoccupied with another project and I see I never
got around to commenting in this thread as I meant to, so hope you
don't mind a belated addition to the thread.
Looking through your gum prints on flickr while this thread was in
progress, I was struck by the sense of exploration and joy in gum
printing. I can relate to that, since my gum printing career has
been characterized by exploration, by using gum to serve many
different purposes, and of appreciation of the myriad aesthetic goals
that can be achieved in gum. Some of those purposes and goals can
be seen by looking through the gallery on my site, which shows some
of the many different ways I've used gum to achieve a particular end.
It's been my experience that some photographers don't appreciate the
more painterly and printmaking uses of gum, and see anything that
diverges from a very narrow idea of what a "photograph" should look
like as "bad" or "wrong." This is not meant to characterize anyone
commenting in this thread particularly, I'm simply reflecting back
on critical, even contemptuous and derogatory, comments that have
been made about my own work.
I'm sure I've told the story before of a helpful person who wrote to
tell me there must be something wrong with my calibration, because
some of the images in my site gallery looked "right" and some didn't
have "enough contrast." I smiled, wrote back and said that's the way
it's supposed to be. For several years in the early "oughts" I was
experimenting with high-key, low-contrast printing, for reasons both
conceptual and technical. I won't bother trying to explain the
conceptual reasons at the moment, but technically I was interested in
the problem of generating smooth tonal gradations in the palest
tones. That work was criticized on the list, was even referred in a
backhanded way as "crap," which goes a little beyond constructive
criticism, but the comment made no particular impression on me
because the comment simply showed that the person didn't understand
what I was doing and didn't know what he was talking about. Although
after four or five years I moved back toward printing with more
contrast again, I make no apologies for that body of work, and in
fact consider some of it my best work; others must have agreed,
because it was a series made during that period that was purchased
for a collection that includes Jasper Johns, Robert Motherwell,
Elizabeth Rothenberg and other leading 20th century printmakers. I
say that, not to toot my own horn particularly, but just as a way of
encouraging you to follow your own mind and heart. You have taken
wonderfully to gum and are making it your own, and as you continue
your practice, experimenting with different effects, you will find
that you have the ability to make gum do anything you want it to do.
This is a rare ability; cherish it.
With best regards,
Katharine
On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:35 PM, Paul Viapiano wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Last week was a very busy one getting ready for our Father's Day
> celebration
> here so I wasn't able to keep up with alt list. And no, I haven't
> been offended or scared away ;-)
>
> I wanted to have time to respond thoughtfully.
>
> I think critique is invaluable. It's good to hear what others think
> and have
> a fresh set of eyes to view your work. If an artist truly believes
> in the
> work they're creating, it won't sway them but will, I believe, enrich
> his/her artmaking in other ways. I'm surprised there isn't more
> sharing of
> work here.
>
> With the prints of the cups and the doors, I was attempting to get
> a photorealistic print, much in the manner of Keith Taylor's
> incredible gums. The combination of Fabriano EW HP and Arista OHP,
> helped realize that intention as well as using a negative that had
> much more range than anything I've seen suggested here or
> elsewhere. The pigments matched Keith's published choices and the
> paper was unsized, although I did not mount the paper to aluminum
> sheeting or another substrate.
>
> I still have a long way to go in refining this technique to my
> satisfaction, but at least the seeds are there for further work.
>
> The print of the lone tree, which seemed to generate much
> discussion, was done differently. I wanted to print larger (13.5"
> square on 16x20) than I had before, so that necessitated using a
> paper negative, not having any 17x22 OHP at home. The neg was made
> with Strathmore layout paper (16 lb) and was not waxed. At that
> size I wasn't about to mess with wax.
>
> Since I was using a paper neg, I decided to go with Rives BFK. In
> my experience, paper negs can give a softer look than OHP. The
> Rives paper is very absorbent with much more texture than the
> Fabriano. Working unsized, it's always given me a very watercolor-y
> feel. I was looking forward to making a print with a totally
> different feel to it. I used Q Gold, Q Red and Phthalo Blue.
>
> I love how gum can be so many things. The variables that drive
> people nuts can really turn out to be its biggest strengths once
> sorted out.
>
> Thanks all for your comments. I hope you don't mind if I continue
> to post images from to time...
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Diana Bloomfield"
> <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net>
> To: "The alternative photographic processes mailing list" <alt-
> photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 8:34 PM
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: another new gum...
>
>
>
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> Yes, could be a difference in monitors, but I suspect we simply
>> have an aesthetic difference-- with this particular image.
>>
>> I feel bad talking about Paul and his prints, as though he's
>> somewhere in the room listening, but not allowed to respond-- but
>> my point, really, was that I think it could be stronger with
>> printing it differently (and without introducing muddiness or a
>> "cloying" quality). In fact, as it stands, the bottom part of
>> the image-- though not dark or rich-- looks muddy to me now.
>>
>> I like the subject matter, and even though I like the way the sky
>> is rendered, the rest just seems to be lacking somehow.. Maybe
>> Marek clarified it by saying that, overall, the image has a cyan
>> cast to it. That's what it looks like to me, too. I couldn't
>> determine what it was, except that everything seemed to look the
>> same to me-- There wasn't that wonderful richness and definition
>> of colors and tones that were so evident in the first prints
>> posted. Not that every print has to be the same, but this just
>> seem much less "accomplished" to me.
>>
>> How one chooses to print-- in whatever process-- should, of
>> course, have to satisfy no one but the image-maker. But this
>> reminds me of students I sometimes have, who will show just
>> amazing work-- with a real eye for what makes a compelling
>> image-- and not only that, they know how to print-- and I have to
>> wonder what they're doing in my class in the first place. Then
>> these same students will turn around the next week-- and show
>> work that makes it hard to believe it's coming from the same set
>> of eyes. My usual response is, "What in the hell were you
>> thinking with this?" (Though I typically say that in a much
>> nicer way.)
>>
>> So I stand by my comment that, print-wise, this just isn't nearly
>> as accomplished or as strong as Paul's earlier prints he posted--
>> at least, from my viewpoint (and how it appears on my screen).
>> Not everything has to be the same, obviously-- but, for me, it's
>> hard to believe the same person who made this, also made those
>> others.
>>
>> The good news, Paul, is that people are so taken with your
>> images, that you're getting responses and some actual dialogue
>> about them. I hope you'll post more. :)
>>
>> Diana
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Keith Gerling wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Diana,
>>>
>>> I find the sky in this work to be incredibly rich and
>>> complete. Maybe its
>>> a difference in monitors or something, but I really cannot
>>> visualize this
>>> picture any "richer" w/o being cloying.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Diana Bloomfield <
>>> dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do you really think so, Keith? It seems to me I've seen some
>>>> wonderful gum
>>>> prints that are rich and full of color that don't actually
>>>> cross that fine
>>>> line into muddiness. I also see this image (subject matter)
>>>> open to various
>>>> "techniques" and options. Obviously, a different mood would be
>>>> evoked if
>>>> printed differently, but I can see this image printed both
>>>> richer and
>>>> darker-- even, and especially, in the bottom third (without
>>>> evolving into
>>>> muddiness) and becoming a print that's is as interesting and
>>>> seemingly
>>>> "perfect" as this one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 13, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Keith Gerling wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nice Paul. The technique should fit the subject, which this
>>>> does. I like
>>>>
>>>>> the way you handled the bottom third of this composition. A
>>>>> richer
>>>>> handling
>>>>> would have turned to mud.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Diana Bloomfield <
>>>>> dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, this is nice, too-- but I like the others you did so
>>>>>> much better.
>>>>>> Maybe I just like the images themselves better than this one,
>>>>>> but I also
>>>>>> thought the printing was just superior and richer in every
>>>>>> way. I think
>>>>>> this is the style (that a lot of people seem to love, I guess)
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> always
>>>>>> makes me think of Polaroid emulsion lifts. That's what this more
>>>>>> "painterly" style looks like to me. For what it's worth, my
>>>>>> vote is for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> other way. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Diana
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Paul Viapiano wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's another new gum in a more painterly style than my last two
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> offerings...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/4691939849/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
>
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list
mailing list