The tool and the mark
general, my art :: posted on September 17th, 2008
Finally after hours and hours and hours… and hours of working on this plate it is ready to go into the etch! It is 60 x 60cm.
It is a copper plate coated with bitumen as a ground and I have used the beautiful Nothofagus gunnii or Deciduous Beech as the image inspiration. It is quite a stunning sight in the high peaks of Tasmania and the leaves are very sculptural in their form and the way they group together and sit on the trees. The plate is supposed to be a layer to work with another image, so hopefully things will come together and this aching wrist will be justified!
While I was marking the seemingly endless little strokes into the bitumen it occurred to me that the tool can be so crucial in determining the mark. Not rocket science of course, but as I worked I hadn’t noticed that the point of my tool had become about as sharp as a tapestry needle rather than a finely honed tip. This determines the breadth of the mark and indeed how cleanly the mark is made. So it got me thinking, as you do when performing repetitive tasks, about the use of the dremel type tools in printmaking. This is probably a bit of a touchy subject, considering the huge relief it has been for people to be able to work images with more speed and efficiency as the effort of making the mark is placed in the power of the tool rather than the stroke of the hand.
But my concern is this, does the tool then become the mark of the maker, rather than the makers hand being the mark? The question has stemmed from a recent crop of beautiful work from several highly talented and regarded artists which is barely distinguishable between each person - and my vote is for the tool that is creating a flattening out of the artists hand, rather than any other more sinister explanation.
Ok I’ll jump down off my soapbox now… and get back to work!
September 17th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Hey Linden,
your plate looks fantastic !! Your comment about tools is interesting..whatever it takes what does it matter ? if a “dremel tool” is used it is still in YOUR HAND and it does not create an image by itself. If it makes it easier and reduces the chance of repetative strain it can be positive. Do you mean people have a similar style when you say they are “barely distiguishable”? Could this be mutual admiration ? Anyone can obtain the same tools to make a mark but you would think the tool does not create by itself. Let’s face it you can never please everyone (prudish purists) and if debate this encourages…cool, even better !
regards Andrew
September 17th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Mmm interesting. I guess a mechanical swivelling dremel is going to give a more machined consistent groove, as opposed to the variant of human stroke perhaps. But I guess your point is valid. One might use a shovel for that matter because a mark is a mark. I don’t think its about being purist about tools, more a comment on the more you see dremels being used nowdays and the similarity between dremel marks as opposed to other tools, in particular due to that machined spinning action.
Although, I have to admit I’m not a printmaker.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Ah Andrew - am I the prude? Goodness gracious me - I guess that would prove that your never too old for a first… The point I was trying to make seems a little off to the side of what you are saying - which of course is very true - I am being specific about the electric tool action that smooths out the mark of the hand - for example if you had three artists using the dremel and three using a scratchy tool to make the ’same’ pattern I would suggest that the dremel patterns would be much closer in mark than the other.
Of course I’m not suggesting for a split second that using tools like that doesn’t have a place - of course they do! I was just thinking that maybe they need to be used with appreciation of ‘their’ mark.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Steven you don’t need to be a printmaker to appreciate art - probably a good objective position!
Thanks for the interest!
September 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Hey lindon,
how are you ? You may have perhaps misunderstand the spirit of my previous remarks (or my foot is wedged in my mouth) …it was not to imply that you are a prudish but of an attitude it seems some have in regard to new technologies or methodologies, i.e. some seem to imply digital prints less valid then other more established or traditional print medium…do you see my point ? Do see where your coming from in relation to trad hand tools, as you stated in your original comment when relating that you had not resharpened your tool and the subsequent result on th marks you were making. Sure there is the point about the subtleties of marks and how they are perhaps even a signature of an indivdual in how they’re made. The appreciation of the mark the newer tool(s) makes and it’s speed, ease of use may be the very reason it is chosen over more traditional tools/methods, or indeed for those particular qualities that make it less subtle. Most interesting discussion at any rate me thinks, much thanks for the opportunity to share opinions.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Hi Andrew,
Don’t worry - I had a smile on my face! I think the constant discussion about modern methods is a good one to have as there needs to always be a considered approach to defining practice. At the end of the day art is - and this is just one little thought - an expression of cultural aesthetics, so within that framework then anything goes. But that is one big umberella, and finding a space within it that allows you to sit comfortably with your own ideals and motivations is surely a legitimate way to negotiate the breadth and depth of that umberella?
Thanks for your input - love a debate!