Post Conference

SGCI in San Francisco was a great time. There was a lot going on, almost too much to handle, but I made some solid connections and have some strong possibilities. The portfolio and the panel were a hit for those that saw them and I had some great feedback and interest by others in wanting to do similar work.

On Thursday, I was able to make my way out to one of the demos after going to the SGCI member meeting that morning. It was the Iron-On Intaglio demo put on by three of the printmakers from Zea Mays Printmaking. The process used an engineering sheeting that is typically used for etching circuit boards, but the ladies of Zea Mays figured out a process for using it for photo imagery on copper plates. Though not as good as gravure, it has a lot of possibilities for teaching basic photo-etching processes that actually etch the plate and not create a relief surface, like ImagOn. Check out about 20 of their tests at this link: http://www.zeamaysprintmaking.com/research/technical-research/intaglio-photo-transfer-with-pcb-press-n-peel/

After that I went to The Aesthetic Union to set up the portfolio for the reception on Saturday. James Tucker, a friend of mine from Ringling, is the proprietor of the studio. He transferred to MICA halfway through college and got a summer internship at Hatch Show in Nashville. After graduation James made his way to SF and worked for a few different studios, including Hello Lucky with Aaron Cohick, before he was offered this space a few months ago.

View of the portfolio hung on the shop wall.

Signage for The Aesthetic Union

On Friday, we made our way out to UC Berkeley for the panel. Georgia Deal, Ruth Lingen, Justin Strom and I gave talks about different collaborative experiences we have had that were outside the standards of printmaking and how we all looked at and dealt with them. As I have posted before, my part was about this portfolio and the experience of creating editions with non-artists. Georgia’s was about our experience, last summer, working with Mia Feuer and creating prints on tar paper for her installation in the Fall. Ruth presented her experiences working with the artists Leonardo Drew and Shepard Fairey for Pace Paper. She worked with both artists during a 1 and a half year long period, going back and forth over different months, and how she had to look at and conceive of things differently for each. And lastly, Justin talked about the experience of the symposium he created in 2009 at the University of Maryland, but then further how that expanded into a series of one day print collaborations between University of Maryland, George Mason University and Corcoran College of Art and Design students to allow the students from each school to host and show off their facilities, building stronger ties between the printmaking community of DC.

Image of title page for presentations.

The response after te panel was great, we each had multiple people come up and ask us about our experiences or how they might get into doing similar work and collaborations. We actually had to be asked to leave because we were moving into the time for the next presenter.

Saturday was the last big day for the conference. The education panel in the morning was great and had some really good points on how to bridge printmaking into the general curriculum of art programs. There were also some great demos, especially the one by Shannon Collis that should off a new technique she was working on to create sound from prints. But the afternoon/evening Mission Art Walk was a bit of a let down, part bad weather, part bad planning. We had a few people come by The Aesthetic Union, but not as many as hoped. Either way the conference was a success and I look forward to the one next March in Knoxville, TN.

For now, I am working on the next edition for the press and trying to finish the press packet for the portfolio to send out for possible exhibitions.

An Unusual Twist

There has not been much change in the print or the portfolio, but there has been an unusual twist. As I wrote about previously, the portfolio was not selected for the SGC conference exhibition. This could have been for a variety of reasons, so it is not worth speculating. The twist is that this past Monday, I received an email from Georgia saying that the panel that she was heading which includes myself and Justin Strom, http://www.art.umd.edu/faculty/jstrom/, has been accepted for the conference. What makes this unusual and a big twist in the situation is that the panel is focused around printmaking collaboration that bridge areas. For example, Justin will be discussing the collaborative print sessions that George Mason University, Corcoran College and the University of Maryland held over a three year period, bringing their students together at the different studios for large printing sessions. Georgia will be discussing our recent collaboration with the art Mia Feuer, http://www.miafeuer.com/, for her large installation exhibition at the Corcoran museum entitled, An Unkindness , http://www.corcoran.org/exhibitions/mia-feuer-unkindness. And I will be discussing my own collaboration, but also those of the other printmakers, as we put together a portfolio in which we each collaborated with a chosen scientist or engineer. Sound familiar?

So, I am going to be up in front of a crowd of possibly 100 other printmakers and students, showing slides and talking about process and ideas behind a portfolio that will not be shown at the same conference. There seems to be something wrong with this setup. Now, again we could speculate all day long, but I would hazard a guess that the two committees didn’t notice a correlation between the panel and the portfolio. That being said, there may not have been anyone that was on both committees to notice the connection, so I am not angry or annoyed, just a little amused.

What can be done? Well, I have heard beck from some participants and the suggestion was made that I contact the committee for the portfolios and let them know of the situation and see what might be done. I have already contacted a space in the San Francisco area to see about showing during the exhibition, so it may not be necessary, but I know that the conference might rather have both under their name than to have people go offsite to see the prints in person.

Georgia has agreed with my emailing the committee to inquire and see if a change can be made, so hopefully some progress on that will be part of the next update. Otherwise, I had planned to see Mason’s lab yesterday, but he had too much work. I am going to try to get him to my house next weekend for a serious work session, hopefully ending with a mockup I can make some test prints of.

Further Progress

Been a productive week and its not slowing down. Summer classes are ending with the final screen printing session on Saturday, Tuesday we had a long print session in the studios for an installation project that Georgia, myself and some others are helping creating birch bark printed tar paper. The artist is Mia Feuer (http://www.miafeuer.com/) and the tar paper will be used as a larger installation inside the Corcoran Gallery of Art. The show, titled “An Unkindness,” (http://www.corcoran.org/exhibitions/mia-feuer-unkindness) will be opening in early November and go through the new year. We spent four hours printing over 200 feet of tar paper on Tuesday and there may be a need for more.

As for R&D editions work, I met with Mason on Tuesday night and we had a long conversation about the progress of the work and where he was thinking. He had written a few things, but we came to realize that doing a piece utilizing a story or scripted text based around his laboratory work did not seem to fit anymore. It felt forced and inappropriate for a portfolio, more like something we could collaborate on later as a series or book form.

What we did decide is to consider the chaos of running experiments, more specifically the repetitive nature behind the need to prove results. For example, Mason told me of a recent experiment that they had produced multiple times with no results and then on the day of their last attempt, his boss mentioned that they would not have to go through this again as they had never had any results before and this one would give none either. But then, a miracle (or a bout of torture, depending on your perspective), this latest test produced viable results, the only problem, now they had to repeat it. So where two hours earlier it looked like the end, Mason and the lab would now how to repeat the experiment again, to try and match the results.

This uncontrollable, repetitive nature of experimentation in a research laboratory has driven some of Mason’s ideas and will be the foundation of what we will work towards. Most likely, we will layer imagery and text to build of the chaotic, repetitive environment of the ideas of repeating for results and finish the print off with an image or text that will bring the whole to a point. For now, I will see what notes and images Mason sends my way.

Otherwise, I am working on the colophon design, waiting to hear on portfolio quotes and moving forward on all fronts for this portfolio. Next week will probably be another participant profile post unless any big updates come through.