jewelia (jewelia@erols.com)
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:59:35 -0800
yes, charles--lignin is not a good thing to have in your paper--but these
days is not difficult to extract--then its used to make gooey adhesives and
other good junk.
the lignin component varies between species--by the amount, where it is in
the wood (i recall always in the hemicellulose component where the resins
are found), and its makeup--sort of a variable menagerie of stuff. USDA and
DOE along with private investment from the industry have spent a fortune on
developing species with very little lignin (lignin free) content--like
cotton. another motivation behind this technological drive--is that the
o'natural trees were pretty much mowed down and the US paper industry was
not faring too well in the developing global markets. a lot of pulp is now
grown on efficient, actually renewable "plantations" -- resulting in species
of popular and southern pine generally that grow fast and in their youth
have little (or what is called free of) lignin content.
extraction costs money--more than what the extracted lignin is worth--(part
of the efforts to commercialize ethanol production from cellulose is to
develop additional uses and markets for the lignin, which must be extracted
prior to fermentation for this process.) so if a paper product is not
intended to last--the lignin generally would be left in--perhaps in brown
wrapping papers or cardboard boxes, which are full of nasty
stuff--incidentally--you would be surprised how many people i run into who
fret obsessively about the archival qualities of their papers which they
have stored in cardboard boxes, framed prints in rag mats backed and sealed
in with corrugation and other junk that they are unsure of (you can get
'archival' corrugation) and prints wrapped up in newsprint, brown paper, or
old cardboard boxes--and so on.
and that kozo that has so well proven itself capable to last the empirical
test of history---"all three of the japanese fibers retain varied amounts of
lignin in the finished papers without apparent harmful effect in old,
traditionally made sheets. (some stuff on abaca left out)...The type and
degree of processing are likely to be the determining factors in this regard
(archival permanence)." i think this is pretty much true for all papers and
is in addition to what happens next.
just consider that kodak doesn't have a lock on this tech. or own
it--perhaps one of the few related to their products they don't and
also--that photographers are not the only artists concerned that their
images "last." i sort of doubt that a company would get away with producing
a paper having a high lignin content and calling it a fine art paper-- i
think that is sort of the idea behind classifying a paper as a fine art
paper. if you go to the store and ask if a paper is lignin free--i expect
you will get the answer "huh?" of course, just as in cotton papers, there
are still differences beyond what we might call acceptable thresholds and
just as in rag papers--likely to be some duds out there. so, this is a
matter of our own experience and a good reason for media of exchange such as
this list. i sort of think the rule that you get what you pay for is a good
rule but i don't adhere to that one strictly either. i've seen some nice
work done on these sulfite and japanese papers and what is a shame is that
too often is that you run into people who think of paper solely in terms of
"archival" qualities because of what they've heard or read. a lot of
mythology floating around out there i tend to think. archival
qualities--important--but too -- the more you know about them--seem less and
less rocket science and art is supposed to be a process of decision making.
fear can be disarming and a shame if it limits your art too much. an awful
lot of "successful" art seems to be based on breaking those rules
(understanding them as guidelines and how the language of a mdium might be
expanded).
in summary, i wouldn't advocate that everyone shift to sulfite papers or
consider that their prints or, alternatively, that rag paper you are using
will last 1,000 years. i wouldn't advocate much of anything myself. i like
to think of possibilities. i think the technology involved in our process
can lead you to trap yourself in a body limited by rather arbitrary rules
myself. i print a lot of my work on platine but i think more about what
paper i use and how that might change the image---i am doing my best to be a
little more flexible in my work and i think its working....
jewelia margueritta cameroon
an unofficial possible artist
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:53