Re: Learning, loooong post

Good morning!

Since my name has been entered into this convo I feel I have to clear up a
couple things.

Somehow we have segued from the original issue:

Does the gum harden top down or bottom up?

Not that huge segues are a bad thing, mind you, as I'll stay on topic at
first and then segue, below, but the only reason I mentioned the separation
of the dichromate as a quirky observation was in reference to Katharine's
intriguing post about Ware's theory that the dichromate migrates to the
surface of the paper.

You replied to that email with a "take a workshop from me or look at my
website" answer, as if the observation I made indicated a technical problem.
Sandy, who was at my thesis show because he teaches at Clemson where it was,
was just assuring you it was not a technical issue, and I would have to say
the same. It is merely an observation I shared in wondering if it supports
Mike's hypothesis.

In reference to Judy's post, too, I find it odd that dichromate, when you
place an exposed print in water to develop, immediately leaches out of the
print in the first 30 seconds. I'm sure a scientist could say why--it's
more water soluble or whatever the case may be. I'll leave those kinds of
issues of why something happens to scientists one of these days who take up
the gum printing cause. Until then, one thing this list HAS taught me if not
the actual answer was never to presume.

Now I'm gonna take a motherly stance here, and counsel you that sometimes
when an alt lister answers a question with a "buy my book" or "take my
workshop" approach it comes off....a bit patronizing. However, if one has a
website, and chooses to answer a particular question with a given URL as
Katharine does at times, that is wonderful because it is helpful,
instructive, and also allows us to compare "apples to apples" so to speak
instead of forking out cash. It would help if you would give us a URL from
your website to direct us to a particular page and a particular answer
instead of a blanket "check my website" approach.

At other times, we should be reaaaalllly cautious at who we say "take my
workshop" to...how would Dan Burkholder react if I didn't know who he was
and told him to take my digineg class this summer? When I first got on this
list and realized the bigwigs on it I was shocked--mortified, actually, at
times. BTW Dan, if you are reading this, two of my students used your
pigment over platinum method and produced incredible prints. I was blown
away--one is doing a "Redhead" project and guess what is colored. I just
love it when I have students that teach me things.

But, back to learning: the bottom line is and has always been, the proof is
in the pudding. Are someone's gums effective at communicating the artist's
intent? I actually don't think that has much to do with technique just as
being a good photographer has nothing to do with a BFA or MFA.

One of my favorite gum prints of the semester is a little teeny 2x4 inch
tricolor that one of my students did that is an absolute FAILURE of
technique--way too yellow, the magenta layer was a flaking mess, but it is
this little teeny self portrait tight shot of her face and it is gorgeous.
I asked the class as a whole, what grade would you give this? They all said
"10". So much for technique. If we could only be so lucky as to have our
technically perfect gum prints be labeled a "10".

To take this back to the "learning" subject line, in class last week I gave
a Powerpoint lecture on the Pictorialist style, and asked the question
theoretically, does this style still have a place today or do we consider it
"schmaltzy"? Has it lost its meaning? (I don't answer these questions, I
just ask.) I used one of our techie students as an example and said, "Could
you imagine Camden doing pictorial imagery?" They all shook their head. I
was posing this question within the overarching question of what is the
current "style" of this generation that we will look back on a hundred years
down the road and label "Ohhhh, that's soooo like 2000".

After class Camden came into my office and said that the Pictorial style was
what attracted him to photography! The class pegged him wrong, and we had a
good laugh. And, if you want to know my opinion on this, I think the
Pictorial style is not only valid but alive and well, in our increasing need
for a return to beauty in this world and our ability to now easily blur
stuff in Photoshop. Blur ROCKS.

I'm sorry, y'all, I just have to keep talking about my students because they
are just too cool for words...that's where my pride shows through...
My 2 cents.
Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: <TERRYAKING@aol.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-L@usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: Learning

John

I thought that was an open forum where could contribute to the discussion at
any time.

In answer to your question a guy called Steinbock got me started in gum. He
made small monochrome single eexposure gum prints with a wide range if tones
in
the style of the 'little gem' from the thirties. All I learnt from him was
that one needed gum and dichromate. Peter Marshall decided to have go at it.
He
got me some dichromate and already had some gum arabic from my water-colour
painting. I worked out the proportions and the pigments and the papers for
myself to be able to make 20 x 16 multicolour gum prints that good enough to
get
prints into international exhibitions and earn me RPS distinctions.

It was only when I was asked to run workshops running a range of alternative
processes that I made a point of researching other processes and also gum. I
was good that I had not read a book on gum printing as the ones I found
seemed
to contain so much overcomplication and nonsense that I could hardly believe
it. Storing particular levels of hue of pigmented gum in a range of bottles
and
measuring the pigment from the tube in mm were kind of nonsense I just found
laughable. The manuals certainly did not help in making good gum prints. As
i
went back over the years I saw the same nonsense being repeated from decade
to
decade and from century to century. There was one book with an amorphous
blob
that had apparently resulted from multiple exposures. I was told that
sixteen
exposures were needed to make a good gum print with a good range of tone but
this was only because the author did not understand the relationships
between
the various factors probably through lack of experience,

The book I did find, for which I have great deal of respect, was 'The
Keepers
of Light'' which provided a guide to our workshops but we tested everything
first and sometimes went down a different path as a result.

If you are not ready to learn and experiment you have given up on life. Over
the years we have used 'oddities' in workshops to explore things further.
This
led to our retro-invention programme where we developed new and improved and
more simple ways of making cyanotypes and chrysotypes, established a good
theory of how the first photograph was made by making in camera
asphaltum
prints although all the academic literature said it was impossible. The
academics
had never done it ! We also had some fun seeing how we would have
photographed
a moving horse a la Muybridge using 12 10 x 8 cameras and a polo pony ( see
the web site). That was fun and I was told that i was one of the most
enlightening educational experiences one lecturer in photography had ever
had.

We also founded APIS, set up new conferences on the part science has played
in the development of the art of photography, this is called 'The Object
Glass
of Science' We hold this at Oxford University and this September we are
combining it with APIS. This July we are having a conference at Durham
Cathedral
called 'The Light from the Darkness' where we will be able to see some of
the
finest platinum prints ever made.. We have had weekends looking into how
Julia
Margeret Cameron made her prints and how women practised photography in the
19C.
We keep learning.

You are right John. one must stay ready to learn and to question what the
gurus say.

Terry

In a message dated 6/4/06 11:15:46 pm, john.grocott403@ntlworld.com writes:

>
> TK wrote
>
>
>
> ''When I started gum printing as there was no one to teach me how to make
> gum prints, let alone the large multi-colour prints I had in mind, I had
> to
> learn from a lot of my own mistakes. A scientific empirical approach.''
>
> .....................................................
>
> It would be enlightening and useful, also, to know how Terry first
> learned about gum printing and also the first
>
> book(s) he read to gain a basic knowledge of materials and techniques. Of
> course, we all learn from our mistakes and I believe we should realize
> that
> others may wish to do the same. The problem is that, theoretically, a
> person may think that he has become so experienced and knowledgeable that
> no
> mistakes are ever made and so the ability to learn ceases.
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 8 10:00:17 2006