>Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:18:39 -0500
>From: Sal Mancini <<sal@napc.com>
>Reply-To: sal@napc.com
>Organization: Palladio Co Inc
>To: Richard Sullivan <<richsul@roadrunner.com>
>Subject: Re: Apples vs Oranges
>
>Richard Sullivan wrote:
>
>>
>> I think several very important points have been left out. Sal is more
>> than likely right about the technical issues, but some of the artistic
>> ones need clarification.
>>
>> 1. The "organic" involvement of the artist in the printmaking process
>> has an effect on the artistic expression. The materials one works with
>> come through in the art. Sculpture in clay is much different than that
>> of stone. In photography, we have in the late 20th Century become
>> further removed from the materials of our craft. I believe it is this
>> sense of being distanced from our craft that has driven the alt-photo
>> revival. As much as I am fascinated and awestruck with modern digital
>> art, such as seen in the work on the new Photoshop 4.0 CDROM samples,
>> I am as equally struck by the seeming sterility of it all. The
>> controls are there, but the involvement is not, not at the organic
>> level, at least.
>>
>What exactly defines this "organic" involvement? How far back does the
>artist need to go to be considered an organically involved Renaisance
>printer? Handmade prints? Handmade paper? Handmade Film? Handmade
>camera? After all this work is one divinely transformed into a better
>artist? For some this may be true, but certainly not for all.
>
>> 2. *Artistic* control over the printmaking variables is very
>> important. What is the *optimum* ratio of platinum to palladium? For
>> some like David Kennedy, it is 100% palladium developed in hot
>> potassium oxalate for rich brown tones, for some like myself, I prefer
>> the neutral grays obtained in Ziatype with a palladum gold mix. Some
>> prefer to print on Bienfang tissue, some like a 300 weight paper, some
>> like a warm toned paper, some like to make their own paper. With
>> Palladio one need not worry, these have all been optimized for us.
>
>If it was up to me, these facts would be public knowledge. However it
>is NOT up to me. I didn't come up with the formula, it would be wrong
>for me to say. The way the proportions were determined was by visual
>inspection. We backed up on the platinum until it just stopped being
>grainy and were left with an image tone somewhere between what a
>straight platinum and a straight palladium print look like. Different
>color combinations can be achieved through different developers and
>toning.
>> One of the more spectacular platinum prints in recent times is a
>> Mapplethorpe flower print made by Martin Axon on canvas, a 24 x24 I
>> believe. A large palladio print was not what Martin had in mind. It
>> sold at auction about 5 years ago for $60,000.00. A record for a
>> contemporary handcoated platinum print, and it may be a record for any
>> contemporary photograph, if one excepts some of Rauschenberg or Warhol
>> like graphics.
>
>> 3. Sole source. If Palladio goes under, a printers ability to match
>> prints in a half finished portfolio edition is gone. Better buy enough
>> in the beginning to finish. All of B&S's products are open formulas,
>> no trade secret ingredients. When I started B&S that was a
>> consideration. As a handcoated printer I wanted ABSOLUTE CONTROL over
>> my prints and I expected that my customers desired the same. Several
>> times in the past year we have had to help printers learn handcoating
>> due to (this was what the printers told us) of their inability to
>> obtain Palladio paper. We were told that Palladio was unable to get
>> their base paper and so production was shut down.
>>
>There is some truth to this but I feel the need to fill in some of the
>blanks.
> The paper base we have been using for the past several years was
>dwindling. We had approached the same mill that originally made it to
>make more of the same. The only change we wanted was for it to be
>about 50% thicker to accomodate the stresses that come with coating on
>a wider machine(30" wide). Their first try was a highly contaminated
>and alkaline(about ph8.5) run. We did not except the run and had them
>try again. the next time the ph was right but the run was way too
>dirty; little bits of iron, rubber, different colored paper,the list
>goes on. This left us in a position of having to find a different mill
>to make the paper and thus not knowing when we would have a readily
>available paper supply. We needed to stretch out our supply until we
>could find a mill capable of making what we needed. The only customers
>we turned away were the ones that wanted to buy large quantities at a
>time and take advantage of our quantity discounts. We had to keep as
>many customers as possible happy while not keeling over and dying at
>the same time. We stopped giving the discounts on quantity and tried
>to discourage people from orderimg more than they absolutely needed.
>This unfortunate period in our history is drawing to a close. We are
>VERY close to releasing our new paper. I'd say about 95% of the way
>there. The tests I have seen, both machine and handmade, are very
>lovely. the midtones smoother,the blacks a teensy bit blacker. And
>yes, we will be selling the paper base to handcoaters. We are not
>going under any time soon.
>
>> As I said before, I believe the average printer can make a better
>> Palladio print than a handcoated print. I will have to admit that this
>> is very lame qualitative assessment, however, when one factors in
>> points 1 and 2 above, it becomes a comparison of apples and oranges.
>
>Soon we will probably start arguing about which is the apple and which
>is the orange.
>> How does one compare an Ernestine Ruben print on sculptural handmade
>> paper to a Palladio print? I don't wish to belabor the point. Palladio
>> has a place. If you want to make master prints, you must ultimately be
>> able to control the variables.
>
>Controlling variables is just what Palladio paper is all about.
>
> Palladio may satisfy many people, but
>> those who wish to feel the rush of creativity that handcoating
>> provides, need not apply.
>>
>> Dick Sullivan
>>
>> Bostick & Sullivan
>> PO Box 16639, Santa Fe
>> NM 87506
>> 505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
>
>I get quite a rush from making a beautiful Palladio print. As I'm sure
>do the people who use it. This argument could go on for years and, I
>suspect, probably will.
>Sal Mancini
>
>
<center>Bostick & Sullivan
PO Box 16639, Santa Fe
NM 87506
505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857</center>
</x-rich>