|This is the "talk page for discussing improvements to the "Printmaking article.
This is "not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|"WikiProject Visual arts||(Rated C-class)|
|"Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / "v0.7||(Rated C-class)|
"Woodcut thought to be the earliest printmaking technique appearing first in 19th century China."
BC or AD? AD is impossible, since woodcut was used in Europe much earlier.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=printmaking plagiarism by wiki? or is the same author responsible for the bulk of the definition on both sites? wiki is post-dated by a day, so either is possible.
That is a reasonable statement. Iron oxide that we scoop up off the surface to make the paints, and iron it's self, has been here for millions of years. It would only change into something else if there was something w,heird in the room (like an open bottle of hydrochloric acid). Suffice it to say, the paper / cloth would likely have gone mouldy / fallen to bits, before the iron oxide / gold / lead changed in a normal atmosphere.
There are, for example, cave paintings, who's colours come from metal oxides, that were done at least a few thousand years ago and still retain their colour.
This is quite a difficult thing to explain but, the primary thing that decomposes pigments (in the atmosphere) is oxygen. If something is already an oxide (e.g. iron oxide), or unable to react with oxygen directly (e.g. gold), it can't go any further than it already is. Organic dyes, on the otherhand, can be quite easily oxidised; pretty much anything that's organic gradually oxidises when exposed to the atmosphere (e.g. perfumes / oil going dark yellow, then brown, then black).
The decomposition of organic materials is accelerated, sometimes a great deal, by exposure to UV and heat. This isn't much of a problem for simple oxides. Indeed, if any of the iron oxide did happen to decompose, it'd only be returned to iron oxide by such an exposure. Removing the oxygen from iron oxide requires a great deal of effort; e.g. a blast furnace (and then it slowly returns to iron oxide, rust, when left out). — Preceding "unsigned comment added by "184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to list Printmakers below the article, which gives examples under each heading ("etching", "silkscreen", etc.), especially since the seperate Printmakers list below only identifies Mauricio Lasansky. Also, the lists of artists under each medium's content is misleading, as most were proficient in many different media. I suggest either removing the "Printmakers" heading and lone example or moving all artists listed at the bottoms of each medium under that heading. Or even creating or editing a "List of Printmakers" entry to be referenced here, removing the lists in this more general article (I see there is a "List of artists collection of lists of artists of various media, but Printmaking isn't one of them!) Any preferences? "PJV
I agree that printmakers under each section is misleading. And I think Category:Printmaking should be created -- although, there is a Category:Printmakers, which need to be applied to each artist using the media. --"Renice 15:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think, that merging the woodcut article with thisone is a wise idea. Woodcut was used in the old Chine for printing chineese letters (occasionaly pictures). The article about printmakeking is on the other hand strictly about printing images using "modern" methods. In other words, there is no history involved and shouldn't be, because the theme contents of strictly technical issues of printing. --Mindshot 06:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the Philigrafika external link is just advertising and should be removed. Anyone else? "GreenInker 08:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
agreed "Johnbod 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I find it disturbing that the page lists four forms of printmaking, but in the explanation section its headings include woodblock (instead of relief) and etching (instead of intaglio.) This needs to be corrected. Listing woodcut as the only form of relief printing is a mistakes which excludes all other substrates as possibilities in the article. What about linocuts? And what about creating reliefs through metal substrates, even through the use of etching techniques? And as to etching being listed instead of intaglio, what becomes of drypoint or engraving, which never utilize an etching solution in any way?? The form of the print, whether it be relief, intaglio, screen, or litho, is really dependent on where the ink is held by the substrate, not the substrate being used. You can do mock-litho with a xerox copier print-out, without the need for stones in any way. You can create an embossed image that would print as relief with etching. The point is, the printmaking article should hold all of this information in order to become a more complete explanation of what that medium truly is.
I agree. I think this article needs to be reorganized -- a rough-draft suggestion:
--"Renice 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
"Relief print should be merged with, or redirected to, this article. While the various types of relief print (woodcut, linocut, etc.) should have their own articles.
--"Renice 16:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the merge tag on relief print (I didn't take it off here), but would be happy to revisit the issue when this page is in shape. Come back Renice, we need you! "Johnbod 17:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
May seem obvious to the artists here, but it isnt for everyone & also from artists' books. Line will be added. "DGG 03:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I am writing an article called "Old master print - not the happiest term perhaps but probably the least confusing. This will cover the Western print, especially the "artist's print" up to about 1830 from a mainly art-historical & social perspective. I won't link it in to this article until it is more complete, but do have a look. I am hoping not to have to do too much on printmaking techniques, but since this article here would in an ideal world be called something like "Fine Art printmaking techniques in America from 1950 to the present" I will either have to do something here or in my article. I will probably also work on the "line engraving article, which should be linked to much more prominently here. "Johnbod 14:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
hi evry 1 my name fanny adams
this redirects to an article mainly about CD's etc called "special edition" - fair enough. I have added to the printmaking bit there, but somewhere i have seen an Wiki article all about LE prints - but i've now lost it. Anyone know what its called? Not "LE print" or "art print". "Johnbod 15:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As a folowup note, that article has been moved to "edition (printmaking), as the word is too common not to be disambiguated, especially since the book usage is probably primary. "oknazevad ("talk) 04:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted these changes: cur) (last) 00:51, 13 November 2006 220.127.116.11 (Talk) (→Techniques)
because they made the whole bottom half of the article half width. I'm not sure what they were trying to do (blank edit box, no name user), but it didn't seem to work. Were those "Artists using... " always in boxes in mid-article? - I thought they were down at the bottom once. Personally I don't think I like them there & if they are so prominent they are an odd selection of artists, and too many, I would say...
The article certainly needs work, in fact a major overhaul, but as it is an important one I think it would be better to float changes here first "Johnbod 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the nature of the beast "Print Production" and the way technology is busy improving the ways of print production as we know it from yesterday. It is important to actually understand the huge amount of variables that many systems must take into consideration when trying to automate most of the processes but saying this, I could not find any research or information on the world wide web identifying what exactly these variables are? Thu the reason for this extra part to the Print page, please add your thoughts on variables not in the list below: 1) Paper 2) Ink 3) ... (unsigned - moved from article)
Anyone who can help me find more permanent, reliable sources backing up the origin of the term Giclee..[excess blather removed]?
The word Giclée (pronounced 'zhee-clay') was coined in 1991 by Jack Duganne, then working at Nash Editions. The word is derived from the French word 'gicleur' meaning 'nozzle' and 'gicler' which is the verb 'to spray', meaning spraying nozzle or the spraying of ink. The main intention was to distinguish fine art prints form those created for commercial purposes, very much the same reason as 'serigraph' was coined earlier. Today different terminology is used to address work printed by digital technology. In the Summer Exhibition 2002, at the Royal Academy of Art, Jennifer Dickson used the term 'Giclée print' on her Petal Screen, "Milton Lodge." However, using the same technology, William Alsop , "Goldsmiths Two," and Edward Cullinan , "Plan of Turner Gallery, Margate," both used the term 'Digital print'. Dorothy Simpson Krause defines Giclée as "reproductions of work done originally in another medium. I make inkjet prints of original digital art," she adds. Mr. Maklansky, assistant director at New Orleans Museum of Modern Art urges that the term "Giclée" should not be used, and Stephen Goddard informs us that "the curatorial world is likely to use the term 'inkjet print." Nash Editions states that: "We do not support the use of the term 'Giclée' to represent anything other than reproductions created for the 'decorative' art market. Most credible museums utilise the term 'digital ink-jet'." To have a consistent terminology I suggest that the term 'Giclée' should be applied to reproductions of artwork originally created by the use of another medium, and 'Digital ink jet' for artworks intended for, and finally created by the use of a computer and digital print technology.
also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Giclée : I went to Lille, in France to help hang an exhibition in a fairly major gallery there, half way through hanging the show, one of the directors asked me what kind of prints the ones that I happened to be putting up were. So I told him in my best french "they are giclee prints" at this he erupted into hysterical laughter, and after gasping something to the others in the room they too fell about laughing. Eventually they pulled themselves together enough to tell me what they found so amusing. The upshot was that the word giclee may well technicaly mean 'squirt' in France, but in THAT part of france it is mainly used in much the same way we might use the word 'cum'. It seems that I was hanging a whole load of orgasm prints - so be warned, think twice before you try and sell a giclee print in france, unless of course...
and below, from http://www.artthrob.co.za/01jan/news.html :
Giclee is a sales term, pure and simple, a bit of hype devised to assuage the anxieties of insecure artists and to obscure for ignorant collectors the fact that this is a machine generated print. Especially given the fact that many people in the art world are French, and many more speak French and know colloquial as well as dictionary French, I'd be greatly surprised to find a decade hence that the term "giclee" -- with its lewd, crude connotations -- has taken root and is commonly used internationally by sophisticated people in the visual arts.
I have no idea how to answer on this page but I'll give it a try; why did you remove my links on printmaking? Does the fact that I created the pages I link to disqualify me for citing them? It is info everyone can use, presented as a subjective take on the use of a printmaking technique. Did you read these pages before deciding to remove them? Best Ldprints (Ldprints ("talk) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on "Printmaking. Please take a moment to review "my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit "this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.