Digital BW, The Print

Actually, I don't mount my images (at least not when I drop them off at a gallery).  I have a black leather box which has a small (3"x3") image inlaid in the cover.  In the box I place about 15-20 11"x11" (7"x7" image area) images with a piece of interleaving tissue between each.

I want the gallery owner to feel the paper and get a sense for the medium.  It seems to work pretty well.

- Jennifer Drucker
http://www.jdrucker.com
jdrucker@...

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: bbstudio_photo@... 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 3:44 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: gallery rules


  Good luck Julian! I agree you have a great chance if they called you first.

  I have a few questions about the "usual rules" you mentioned.

  What print size do the galleries generally expect? 8x10 inches?

  What's the gallery definition of "nicely mounted," dry mounting on a large 
  board, or in hinged mats? In a box?

  thanks everyone,

  Conrad

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@t...> 
  wrote:
  > Hi all,
  > I've just had a phonecall from an art gallery who wants to see my stuff. Now
  > I've never done the portfolio round to an art gallery as opposed to a
  > photography gallery. Do the  usual rules apply - i.e. no more than 10
  > prints, everything nicely mounted etc??
  > 
  > Julian (suddenly nervous)


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "jdrucker" 
<jdrucker@j...> wrote:
> Actually, I don't mount my images (at least not when I drop 
them off at a gallery).


This is a timely thread for me too. I have been asked to do a 
show at a winery in California, and several things are unclear to 
me. I'm a commercial photographer, and this would be my first 
"real" show of personal work. We're also doing a smaller show 
at RIT in December, where my rep went to school, so this is 
coming at me all at once.

* How exactly would you describe these prints, ie. "silver gelatin", 
"cibachrome", etc.? Would you just call them "inkjet"? I've always 
been a bit amused at how "serious" the technical descriptions 
are at some shows. Would you say "inkjet print on coated 
acid-free watercolor paper"? Or would you get more honest and 
just say "Inkjet Dye Print on Watercolor Paper. I'd give it maybe 
ten years..."  I guess these descriptions are to address a 
potential buyers' concerns with longevity, (or is it just to make 
them sound more important)?

* I have asked the framer to use UV glass. Is there anything else 
in the framing process to add longevity? 

* Do most people decide on an edition number in advance? Do 
you think that's a big issue, since I'm not a "real artist"?

* Any advice on how to ship about thirty 30'x30" framed prints? 
Do people build those plywood boxes and send them in those? 
It's a long drive from Nashville to SF, so driving them there is 
probably not an option.

Any info appreciated. Thanks in advance. Here's the working 
URL for the show:

http://marktucker.com/show/

-Mark

Mark,

Forgot to address these other issues in my last post.

> How exactly would you describe these prints, ie. "silver gelatin", 
>  "cibachrome", etc.? Would you just call them "inkjet"?

I used the PiezographyBW inks and driver on fine art paper (Torchon, in 
this case) for my exhibition prints and called them "Carbon Pigment 
Prints". When people asked for more info I explained the process in 
detail.

>* Do most people decide on an edition number in advance? Do 
>  you think that's a big issue, since I'm not a "real artist"?

In a gallery or exhibition situation I would edition the prints. When 
people buy they often like to know theirs is one of a limited quantity. 
Not important - just marketing I suppose but there you have it.

Cheers,

Nina

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., ncm <ncm@m...> 
wrote:
> I used the PiezographyBW inks and driver on fine art paper 
(Torchon, in 
> this case) for my exhibition prints and called them "Carbon 
Pigment 
> Prints". When people asked for more info I explained the 
process in 
> detail.


I think this touches more on my concern (read: fear). Nina's 
description above somehow would almost make you think that 
there's no computer involved. I think that's the big devaluing 
component of this in many people's eye -- "Oh, it was done with 
a computer, huh...?" 

I'm not apologetic in any way that I work on a computer, but I'd 
think there's a general belief system "out there", that unless it's 
done "by hand", then it doesn't have value. Maybe I should take 
my G4 and my 7000 and rent an old musty warehouse with big 
metal-pane windows, and have romantic light constantly 
streaming in, and classical music playing, and have little men 
with handlebar moustaches and aprons running around with ink 
on their hands; maybe I'd feel better about the whole printmaking 
mystique.

I just feel like if/when someone asks me how the prints were 
made, my body will immediately begin to shrivel up, and I won't 
stand straight, and I'll look down at the floor, and start to pace 
around, and I'll mumble "...Well, they're inkjet prints done on a 
computer printer....", and then immediately it'll turn into one of 
those old E.F.Hutton commercials, where the whole room stops 
and everyone turns around and gives me this terrible look, and 
they roll their eyes and shake their head in pity. That's when I'm 
shown the door; the back door.

I know I shouldn't feel this way, because I've received many 
comments on my prints; I think most people are struck by the 
non-glossy watercolor paper. I secretly wish I could come up 
with some vague, haughty description, and I like Nina's above, 
that completely obscures the computer's role.

-Mark Tucker
Raised Southern Baptist (not even Catholic...)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
snip...
> I just feel like if/when someone asks me how the prints were 
> made, my body will immediately begin to shrivel up, and I won't 
> stand straight, and I'll look down at the floor, and start to pace 
> around, and I'll mumble "...Well, they're inkjet prints done on a 
> computer printer....", and then immediately it'll turn into one of 
> those old E.F.Hutton commercials, where the whole room stops 
> and everyone turns around and gives me this terrible look, and 
> they roll their eyes and shake their head in pity. That's when I'm 
> shown the door; the back door.

That was just great, exactly how I feel. But after everything is 
horribly silent they ask me in a low slow voice- "are they archival?"
And I react like someone's going to hit me...

I call them carbon pigment quadtone prints. Isn't that what they are? 
I didn't think how it got on the paper was usually part of the 
description, and I want them to have images of little mustached men...
I have had to try to name any color inkjet prints yet.
Tyler

Mark,

>Maybe I should take 
>my G4 and my 7000 and rent an old musty warehouse with big 
>metal-pane windows, and have romantic light constantly 
>streaming in, and classical music playing, and have little men 
>with handlebar moustaches and aprons running around with ink 
>on their hands; maybe I'd feel better about the whole printmaking 
>mystique.

I love that image (g).

>I know I shouldn't feel this way, because I've received many 
>comments on my prints; I think most people are struck by the 
>non-glossy watercolor paper. I secretly wish I could come up 
>with some vague, haughty description, and I like Nina's above, 
>that completely obscures the computer's role.

Well, I don't try to hide the fact particularly. Was just trying to find 
a short vaguely descriptive name. Some people couldn't care less - either 
they like the images or not. If anyone asked (and lots did) I explained 
exactly how it's done and the reactions were amazed, intrigued and 
extremely positive - and this from museum curators, art critics and 
photographers, among others. So I wouldn't worry. I waxed enthusiastic... 
because I *am* enthusiastic about Piezo and its depth - almost 3D quality 
- or for example the wonderful fine art paper options normal darkroom 
printing doesn't offer (unless you coat your own or do other alternative 
processes). Hell, man be positive about the process! No head hanging or 
foot shuffling allowed (g).

Cheers,

Nina

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., ncm <ncm@m...> wrote:
snip...

>No head hanging or 
> foot shuffling allowed (g).

Cut us some slack Nina, some of us guys can't even make toast, are quite sure we're responsible for everything wrong with 
the world, and our art surely must suck!

You're right of course, and Mark's work is beautiful.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., ncm <ncm@m...> 
wrote:
Hell, man be positive about the process! No head hanging or 
> foot shuffling allowed (g).
> Cheers, 
> Nina

Nina (and others),

In the privacy of my own office, and the privacy of my own mind, I 
am extremely positive about this whole process. No question. I 
feel like five-times the "craftsman" that I was when I printed in the 
darkroom. I know my craft, I know my materials, I am in touch 
with damn near every single pixel in every image that I scan now 
(due to anal dust-spotting, but I'm not really proud of that...). I 
never took the time to really find out what was in Ilford Multigrade 
Matte when I used it (but I guess there also wasn't a cultural fear 
that the print would fade in five years either). So I am with you; I 
stand tall, until............I enter the outside world.

What we all need, as inkjet printers, is a PR agency. We need 
some slimy agency to dream us up a campaign to alter the 
mindset of gallery owners and the outside world. (I volunteer my 
new musty warehouse with classical music. I'll even bring in my 
fog machine, to put that ever-lovely presence of atmosphere in 
the air. I'll even put the fogger directly behind my 7000, so that it 
looks like the printer is from the Industrial Age.)

But seriously, I think that until we DO admit and address this 
"computer issue" and, this "fading/shifting" issue, we're behind 
the eight-ball right out of gate. 

To me, the whole image of Jon Cone is starting to alter that 
mindset. Given, I've never met the guy, but my vision is that he's 
sitting up there in Vermont, or wherever he is, and he milks the 
cows at sunrise, then comes in and cranks up his 7000 and 
starts printing. There are little Woodstock girls with no makeup, 
in Birkenstocks, answering the phones, taking orders, and 
listening to Phish in their walkmans. Bill Bergh is over in the 
corner loading up a new bong-hit while he peruses the new copy 
of Lens Work Magazine. The whole thing is probably just a huge 
painted backdrop, and Jon and Bill are right now sitting in a 
cheap condo outside of Cleveland, in their underwear, eating 
potato chips.

This may, or may not, be true. But at least it's a different image 
than a bunch of computer geeks making prints on an inkjet, 
sitting in a flourescent-lit green office, popping zits, listening to 
Devo, surfing the web for Britney Spears fakes, and reading 
Popular Mechanics. 

We've got to somehow bring the idea of a-r-t  into inkjet, on a 
whole societal level. I'm not sure how to address the issue, but I 
for sure know that this mindset is out there, and it's working 
against us every day.

-Mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> wrote:
big snip...
The whole thing is probably just a huge 
> painted backdrop, and Jon and Bill are right now sitting in a 
> cheap condo outside of Cleveland, in their underwear, eating 
> potato chips.

Mark, you are absolutely making my day, I'm laughing out loud.
I also totaly agree with you. It's enough to try and produce, but the responsibility of educationg the art world about all this 
is overwhelming, and it seems every time I show my work I can't avoid the conversation. I'm also no good at it, which 
doesn't help.
I gotta go read that post again, you are definitely on a roll...
Tyler

> This may, or may not, be true. But at least it's a different image
> than a bunch of computer geeks making prints on an inkjet,
> sitting in a flourescent-lit green office, popping zits, listening to
> Devo, surfing the web for Britney Spears fakes, and reading
> Popular Mechanics.

Oh jeez, that was good....Thanks!

I think it's happening. Look at the current show at the Brooklyn Museum
which is all about digital prints. That they call them inkjet prints,
without apology, without resorting to the affected, mustached, equivalent:
Giclee, is wonderful and affirming. There is no doubt what we do is a valid
process, one that is on the rise, and not going away. That you are at the
forefront of it is to your advantage, not disadvantage.

Todd

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" <mark@m...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., ncm <ncm@m...> 
> wrote:

(snip)
> 
> To me, the whole image of Jon Cone is starting to alter that 
> mindset. Given, I've never met the guy, but my vision is that he's 
> sitting up there in Vermont, or wherever he is, and he milks the 
> cows at sunrise, then comes in and cranks up his 7000 and 
> starts printing. There are little Woodstock girls with no makeup, 
> in Birkenstocks, answering the phones, taking orders, and 
> listening to Phish in their walkmans. Bill Bergh is over in the 
> corner loading up a new bong-hit while he peruses the new copy 
> of Lens Work Magazine. The whole thing is probably just a huge 
> painted backdrop, and Jon and Bill are right now sitting in a 
> cheap condo outside of Cleveland, in their underwear, eating 
> potato chips.
> 
> This may, or may not, be true. But at least it's a different image 
> than a bunch of computer geeks making prints on an inkjet, 
> sitting in a flourescent-lit green office, popping zits, listening 
to 
> Devo, surfing the web for Britney Spears fakes, and reading 
> Popular Mechanics.

Mark,

If you want to know about Jon's roots in the art world you should 
read the articles about him and the Cone Editions history posted on 
the inkjetmall site. He is definately connected into the gallery and 
experimental art scene. I don't think Jon would not have any trouble 
dealing with the gallery owner Julian encountered! 

http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/articles.html
http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/our-mission.html

Check it out.

Martin

(snip)

Mark,

Snort. Guffaw. Oh man don't *do* that...at least not while I am sipping 
my morning coffee. Anybody got a quick remedy for coffee in keyboard 
syndrome?

Between you and Julian I think we've got some closet comic geniuses in 
here. Mebbe you guys should keep the photography as pure artistic 
expression and pursue writing for fun and profit?

Cheers,

Nina

>To me, the whole image of Jon Cone is starting to alter that 
>mindset. Given, I've never met the guy, but my vision is that he's 
>sitting up there in Vermont, or wherever he is, and he milks the 
>cows at sunrise, then comes in and cranks up his 7000 and 
>starts printing. There are little Woodstock girls with no makeup, 
>in Birkenstocks, answering the phones, taking orders, and 
>listening to Phish in their walkmans. Bill Bergh is over in the 
>corner loading up a new bong-hit while he peruses the new copy 
>of Lens Work Magazine. The whole thing is probably just a huge 
>painted backdrop, and Jon and Bill are right now sitting in a 
>cheap condo outside of Cleveland, in their underwear, eating 
>potato chips.