Tuesday, August 30, 2011

A Discovery & A Question

papyrus

A post from me over here is long overdue, so I want to assure everyone that things are happening, the wheels are in motion… and so on.

First : A Discovery

Working on my contribution towards the Art & Lies stream of this edition, I discovered something I think is remarkable: papyrus paper feeds perfectly through inkjet printers (well, mine, anyway) and accepts the archival pigment ink beautifully!

I am still marvelling that it’s possible to bring together these two technologies, literally separated by 1000s of years and find they can operate so well together. I keep imagining the reaction of an Egyptian person from 2500BC, if she/he could just see their familiar old papyrus emerging, all neatly and beautifully printed from my Epson 2100.

Second: A Question

I need to ask you trained printmakers a question about edition numbering.

For my book I have made a drypoint print. The first one I made turned out very nicely and I was quite satisfied. However, the next two I am not happy with at all. I am realizing that I am of course at the bottom of a steepish learning curve with printmaking, and that it was probably a little over-ambitious to think that I could manage 10 or more identical or even satisfactory prints, without expending a lot of energy and without making probably at least twice as many to choose from.

So…I then thought that I could make a scan of the one I like and reproduce it on the now available digital BFK rives paper. All the other parts of the book would remain unchanged.

This would leave me with one original, which would include the actual drypoint, and then an edition of 10 or 12, with the archival digital reproduction of the drypoint + the other components as for the original.

I hope this makes sense!

My questions are:

1) Is this a reasonable thing to do?

2) If so, how do I number these? And what about the original?

I look forward to your advice and if you’d like to see a sneak preview of a little bit of my book, you can pop over to my blog and check out my latest post here.

8 comments:

Abigail Thomas said...

the papyrus thing sounds great! we had to print on that a4 papyrus you can buy at work before, it worked really well then too. cant help you on the editioning thing really, i am not experienced enough! but to me it sounds reasonable. maybe the 'original' could be an a/c artists copy?

sara@sarabowen.net said...

Hi Amanda, it sounds really interesting! I'm looking forward to it... I was thinking about your numbering question: what I would do in that situation is make the copy with the original drypoint as "1/1", then count up the others with the scanned prints and make them "1/X", "2/X" etc. And I'd probably keep the 1/1 copy with the original drypoint myself! Hope that helps... Sara xx

Claire Beynon said...

Hi Amanda and BAO group - the idea of spanning the ages through your use of papyrus and (archival?) ink-jet technology is very exciting.

Just a wee note to say what a joy and privilege it has been to be on the receiving end of your magnificent 'Paper Wrestling' interpretations/creations. Huge thanks for including me in your editions. I am hunting out your respective e-addresses so that I can thank each of you personally. Your work as individual artists and as a collective is inspiring.

With warm wishes and gratitude
Claire

alison said...

Amanda I would keep the original print/drypoint as A.P. (artist's proof)then the scanned ones as 1of 12 . 12 being the edition number and the 1 being first image scanned. then continue 2of 12, 3 of 12 etc .
I can understand scanning them as very hard to get drypoint images the same to be editioned correctly unles you edition it as varied edition and numbered each one the same way.

So you would write it like this example. V.E 3/12 and sign your name. Naturally with each scan having it's own edition number.

Alison

dinahmow said...

I believe Alison is correct re numbering the scans but keeping the original as your A/P.
In the case of BAO work you will be writing a colophon so you will state there that images are scanned from an original drawing.
And yes, I'm also intrigued to think what a priest from ancient times would think of papyrus being mechanically printed.A sort of reverse Nag Hamadi?

ronnie said...

I was thinking along the same lines as alison....ie keep the book containing the original drypoint as your AP - and use the scans throughout the numbered edition ... but I'm not a printer or terribly experienced in the ways of editions - so I readily defer to those who know more than me!

Amanda said...

Thank you all for your thoughts on this. I had sort of thought the same, so that's the way I'll go unless someone else tells me otherwise.
I ordered the digital BFK last night and it has been dispatched from Melbourne, so once it arrives (hopefully by Friday if I'm lucky) I can get cracking.Woohoo!

Ampersand Duck said...

I love your vision of the Egyptian watching the printer. I get blown away by some of the things we can do, they seem utterly magical!

Am late to this (to everything, lately) so am glad to see everyone is on top of your editioning quandary. My friends had a press where they would make 150 books in an edition, and they would have the first 50 with, say, a linocut relief print, the next 50 with an etching and the next 50 with a woodcut. They would number the edition from 1 to 150, and just stated what they were doing in the colophon.

Colophons are the best! Just say that your edition is scanned from an original drypoint.