Re: Comments please?

Kate M wrote:
>
> Interesting image, Katherine. Also interesting what you say about stain.
> Now, its seems that we are all avoiding it like the plague, now you come
> along and say it's charming! Have we all been overly influenced by
> Koadak and the ubiquitous colour snapshot?

Kate,
I've actually thought about this quite a lot for the last couple of
years, starting when I unearthed a slide of one of my very early prints,
done before I had conquered stain, and scanned it for my web page on
pigment stain. I realized that I actually liked the print quite a lot
and wished I'd never sold it, and then I started wondering what ever
happened to me, because my original goal when I started printing gum was
to make photos that were as unphotographic as possible, perhaps even
anti-photographic, if there's such a word.

On reflection I find I've been happiest with the results when I've
followed that "vision" if you will, and least happy when I've gone the
more photographic route with my gum prints.

  This thinking all came to a head earlier this summer with the
discussion about PDN, when Christina announced her results with PDN, and
I thought well, maybe I should spring for the system and learn to make
better negatives. Then suddenly I stopped and thought, why? so I can
make more perfectly photographic gum prints? That's exactly what I don't
want to do! So now I'm going back the other way and trying to replicate
pigment stain. It just goes to show something, I'm not sure what. That
there's plenty of room in the tent for all kinds of ways to use gum, and
that one should follow one's own heart rather than the crowd. My 2cents
for today,
Katharine

>
> About the editioning, it's common practice in printmaking to number
> editions of very alike but at the same time unique in this way. Helps to
> keep printmakers honest!!

Thanks, I didn't know that.
Katharine
Received on Fri Jul 22 16:19:56 2005