Printmaking/Drawing at Washington University
That's a silly question. It's art, for crikey sake!
There are many reasons why I value monoprints, but since I am feeling kind of crotchety, I'm just gonna throw out there that big monoprints allow printmakers to compete with painters, not that its a competition... but we could be taken more seriously from time to time. A monoprint is as sacred as any other one-of-a-kind peice of art.
I think monoprints serve two important semi-paradoxical purposes (for the artist).1) as a freeing agent: Monoprinting is often quick(er) and generally is the most painter-like method of printing, which makes the connection between the artist and their work stronger by removing a few of the processes, drawing tools, etc. Paving the way for better expression of ideas.2) as a limiting agent: On the other hand, working with a one-shot method could force the artist to more seriously plan and consider their choices regarding, color, mark-making, laters, etc.Note: This is all my opinion. I don't claim to know anything.
I think its natural for an artist to subvert the characteristics of his or her medium. Painting was originally seen as a historical document and strove to represent the truth, but has evolved to celebrate its own materiality.
ALSO: So, Huck showed us all the stuff the other day about how to correctly label editions and such and such. And, I guess it just seems like - what does it matter if there's only 1 or there are only 25? The multiple provides printmaking with the OPPORTUNITY to be a democratic medium, but when we value our prints as objects this possibility sort of falls by the wayside. Not that we shouldn't value our prints as objects - we should, but we can't have it both ways, ya know?(is this question like totally old news? should i even be answering it?)(not printmaking related)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONmhQJy1ViA
Post a Comment