Aaron Horkey...Are there any 100% by-hand posters?

[piemel]

How is Allan Jaeger doing?

[DarrenSorkey]

Oh, and I know the OP was specifically in reference to Horkey prints; I was just wondering if it made any difference how he creates the final plates or if it was just a curious inquiry. Horkey is amazing to me no matter what his process is.

Of course it makes a difference.

The process matters...That's what screen printing is all about. Nobody here is bashing cmputers, but in most arts, the more hand-crafted something is, the more special it is.

If you acquired an original Horkey drawing, obviously the process affects its artistic value. It's hard to imagine asking the same question of ho wmuch the process matters because the pure hand+pen+paper process is what makes that piece unique, as opposed to possessing a hand-drawn piece that was scanned and then laser printed.

I know that's a different situation, because your question was specifically about how much the process matters when making plates, but I would consider a hand-cut rubylith print a step closer to an original hand-done piece, because all that was needed was a few sheets, a knife, a screen, some chemicals, some light, and a pair of hands...but no CS3.

I remember reading somewhere that Horkey sometimes wonders if he was born in the wrong century. If he has made any prints entirely by hand, which could have potentiallybeen made 70 years ago, I'd sure like to know.

Gosh, thanks for schooling me on process.

You do realize a computer does not automate anything, right? That just instead of rubylith and a razor knife, you're physically coloring in the color separations with a pen on the monitor, i.e., hand drawing it?

This discussion always amuses me.

No problem. Your computer lesson was informative too.

I can guarantee that anything Horkey makes entirely with his own hands has a slightly different kind of value for him.

[piemel]

isnt this the same thing where some people like 'hand' printed posters better than prints from an auto-press?

or where some collector value artists who do their own printing higher than those artists that use a printer?

[DarrenSorkey]

isnt this the same thing where some people like 'hand' printed posters better than prints from an auto-press?

or where some collector value artists who do their own printing higher than those artists that use a printer?

haha, pretty similar debate I guess. It's an issue that goes back to the people who respected the principals of the Arts and Crafts movement, but new that a full rejection of industrialization was stubborn and impractical.

It's the same thing here. I personally would value a print more knowing that the artist did it all by him/herself and all by hand, but anybody who would do it professionally on a large scale and regular basis, who didn't seek more practical means of production (ie. computers, auto-press, extra hands), would probably be a frustratingly idealistic person, or someone without much time/life outside the studio.

I hadn't intended to start a pointless debate over an old issue, but to see if Horkey had any prints he did by himself, cause I'd be interested in trying to acquire one (a lot cheaper than an original drawing...).

[drowningcreek]

Oh, and I know the OP was specifically in reference to Horkey prints; I was just wondering if it made any difference how he creates the final plates or if it was just a curious inquiry. Horkey is amazing to me no matter what his process is.

Of course it makes a difference.

The process matters...That's what screen printing is all about. Nobody here is bashing cmputers, but in most arts, the more hand-crafted something is, the more special it is.

If you acquired an original Horkey drawing, obviously the process affects its artistic value. It's hard to imagine asking the same question of ho wmuch the process matters because the pure hand+pen+paper process is what makes that piece unique, as opposed to possessing a hand-drawn piece that was scanned and then laser printed.

I know that's a different situation, because your question was specifically about how much the process matters when making plates, but I would consider a hand-cut rubylith print a step closer to an original hand-done piece, because all that was needed was a few sheets, a knife, a screen, some chemicals, some light, and a pair of hands...but no CS3.

I remember reading somewhere that Horkey sometimes wonders if he was born in the wrong century. If he has made any prints entirely by hand, which could have potentiallybeen made 70 years ago, I'd sure like to know.

Gosh, thanks for schooling me on process.

You do realize a computer does not automate anything, right? That just instead of rubylith and a razor knife, you're physically coloring in the color separations with a pen on the monitor, i.e., hand drawing it?

This discussion always amuses me.

No problem. Your computer lesson was informative too.

I can guarantee that anything Horkey makes entirely with his own hands has a slightly different kind of value for him.

Dude, I was being facetious about schooling me. I've cut more rubylith than I care to recall.

All of the methods used to getting a print completed are just tools. That's all. Some artists use old school tools; some use new school tools.

Some artists prefer the old ways; some use them because they don't know how to do the same thing in a computer. Whatever reason, the creation process and the end result all depend entirely on the artist and their ability to get what's in their head onto paper as a finished print.

Some artists still pull their own squeegees and hand print. More and more studios are using a semi-automated press. One reason for that is because printing is extremely hard on the wrists and a bunch of us old-timers blew our wrists out a long time ago hand printing and HAVE to use a press whether we like it or not. And still, the printing process is just the same either way.

There's a whole lot of artists who don't do their own printing at all. Does that make their work any less special to them than another artist who does their own printing? I seriously doubt it.

Yes, Piemel, this is exactly the same thing.

[piemel]

So how is Allan?

[drowningcreek]

So how is Allan?

I haven't talked to him, but a mutual friend just told me he's back in the NOLA area.

I'm going to try and contact him when I get a chance. I've had a stack of books to send him sitting here forever.

I'll let you know if I reach him.

[GreenMt]

isnt this the same thing where some people like 'hand' printed posters better than prints from an auto-press?

or where some collector value artists who do their own printing higher than those artists that use a printer?

No, I don't think so. This thread has explained a lot to me, who is a non-artist, and makes a compelling argument that the use a a computer is very similar to any type of hand drawing in the design of posters.

I would still argue that there is a difference between what you can do with hand-pulled silkscreens vs machine/computer done printing. Computers can produce exquisitely detailed images, each an exact duplicate of the others, with quality varying little amongst different copies. Hand-pulling, from what I've seen, cannot usually produce the detail level a machine can, but it makes it part of the art--techniques involving blends, thick metallic inks, in the hands of a great printer, can do beautiful things.

I think, on the other hand, that even though I prefer hand-printed work, it would be foolish of me to insist that I am "right" in something that is a matter of artistic taste.

[piemel]

So how is Allan?

I haven't talked to him, but a mutual friend just told me he's back in the NOLA area.

I'm going to try and contact him when I get a chance. I've had a stack of books to send him sitting here forever.

I'll let you know if I reach him.

Good to hear he is back in Nola... the dude is back where he belongs... Houston seemed wrong for him and I much prefer to imagine him in the swamp of hot and humid New Orleans where his brain can go wild

[Catarax]

isnt this the same thing where some people like 'hand' printed posters better than prints from an auto-press?

or where some collector value artists who do their own printing higher than those artists that use a printer?

i like when they do both...

[drowningcreek]

No, I don't think so. This thread has explained a lot to me, who is a non-artist, and makes a compelling argument that the use a a computer is very similar to any type of hand drawing in the design of posters.

I would still argue that there is a difference between what you can do with hand-pulled silkscreens vs machine/computer done printing. Computers can produce exquisitely detailed images, each an exact duplicate of the others, with quality varying little amongst different copies. Hand-pulling, from what I've seen, cannot usually produce the detail level a machine can, but it makes it part of the art--techniques involving blends, thick metallic inks, in the hands of a great printer, can do beautiful things.

OK, I'm going to try and explain this....

The computer does not do the printing unless you are printing a giclee on an inkjet printer.

Hand printing is where the printer pulls the squeegee with their hands pushing the ink through a screen that has been created using some sort of stenciling process.

Printing with a semi-automatic press is where the press pulls the squeegee pushing the ink through a screen that has been created using some sort of stenciling process.

The difference in the result is the consistency from print to print is generally better using a semi-auto press because the pressure applied by the squeegee to push the ink through the screen is the same every time. It's a lot harder for a person to apply the exact same amount of pressure every pull.

Both processes can be screwed up by a bad printer (person). You either know how to print or you don't. If you can't register colors on a hand press set up, you won't be able to do it any better on a semi-auto press.

You can do blends or print with metallics on either set up. To what degree of success depends on the ability, knowledge and experience of the person doing the printing. Period.

There are a lot of reasons why the detail level is different from human printer to human printer... most of it having to do with the types of medium they are printing with and their level of experience. Someone who is using shitty screens with large mesh won't be able to print as well as someone who knows how to tension their screens better and is using a higher mesh count. If you don't know how to use the tools of the trade, your print work is going to look very primitive.

There are some DIY artists who set their art up very loosely to cover up their lack of printing skills. Then there are artist printers like Firehouse. And that's not a slag at anyone, some artists prefer a more primitive look as do the people who buy their work.

Setting up artwork either by cutting rubylith or using CS3 to cut your plate gets you the exact same result. And if you can't do it with razor knife, using a computer won't make it any better. Either method still follows the "fudge in = fudge out" philosophy if you don't know what you are doing. The computer doesn't do it for you. It's simply a tool just like a razor knife.

I think, on the other hand, that even though I prefer hand-printed work, it would be foolish of me to insist that I am "right" in something that is a matter of artistic taste.

Well, I agree that it's foolish to insist one is better than the other especially when I know artists who are trying to save enough money to buy an automated press because hand printing is exhausting. Even if mine and Jeff's wrists weren't blown out from hand printing t-shirts for years and years, there's no way we'd ever want to print an 8 color 600 pc edition by hand. That would just be masochistic.

Something else that is to be considered about artists and printing is that some of us come from production art backgrounds. The goal in production is to always print the very best you can every print impression that you pulled. Clients don't pay for shitty printed t-shirts or posters. They want all of them to be of equal quality. Each year we went to huge industry shows so we could keep abreast of the latest and best equipment and tools to achieve that and to save time in the process. Equipment is constantly being improved upon and the best print shops always keep up with that so they can keep their competitive edge over other print shops, if they are smart and business savvy.

Jeff was one of the very first artists to produce separations for the screen printing industry on a computer. He helped pioneer how to take art into the computer and produce it for reproduction printing. I have an article from The Press magazine where he was featured as the first to do separations for screen printing in a computer that I plan to scan in and put up on our web site along with some of the NFL, NHL, NBA and other commercial work he's done. I'll post a link when I do that.

[GeoffPeveto]

isnt this the same thing where some people like 'hand' printed posters better than prints from an auto-press?

or where some collector value artists who do their own printing higher than those artists that use a printer?

No, I don't think so. This thread has explained a lot to me, who is a non-artist, and makes a compelling argument that the use a a computer is very similar to any type of hand drawing in the design of posters.

I would still argue that there is a difference between what you can do with hand-pulled silkscreens vs machine/computer done printing. Computers can produce exquisitely detailed images, each an exact duplicate of the others, with quality varying little amongst different copies. Hand-pulling, from what I've seen, cannot usually produce the detail level a machine can, but it makes it part of the art--techniques involving blends, thick metallic inks, in the hands of a great printer, can do beautiful things.

I think, on the other hand, that even though I prefer hand-printed work, it would be foolish of me to insist that I am "right" in something that is a matter of artistic taste.

if you are talking about a giclée vs. a screen print then yes there is a difference. Giclée are just fancy laser prints. In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, they should not be worth what a silkscreen is. It's nothing but pushing a button and out pops a finished laser print. If you can recreate that detail with a silkscreen now that's a different level of expertise and art.

If you are talking about the difference between hand pulling vs. a semi auto press there is no difference. The semi auto, while a machine, is only recreating the action of a human pulling a squeegee across the screen. Every other single aspect of creating the print is exactly the same. From how the film is created (regardless of rubylith, hand painted film or computer output) to how the screen is prepped and burned to the ink mixing, the paper choice and all other elements. The semi auto press only pushed the ink across the paper it is still very much hands on. A good screen printer can hand screen the exact same print as well. Your muscles train themselves to pull the squeegee exactly the same pull after pull.

I have separated my ribs from my breast plate, wrenched my back, gotten a hernia and put undo stress on my wrists in just 6 - 7 years of hand printing. A semi auto is a life saver. Hand printing anything over an edition of 50 is very physically demanding and I never fault a single printer for using a semi auto to enable them to keep printing. The alternative is no more art from that printer. Be s shame to loose the art of screen printing to fancy laser prints.

[GeoffPeveto]

and what Judy just said

[drowningcreek]

Yeah, what Perveto said.

[GeoffPeveto]

I miss seeing you and Jeff at Flatstocks. You guys are badass. Hope to see you soon.