[Table of Contents] [Search]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Non-Toxic Printmaking



My implications are two fold.  One.... the look of some techniques can not
be duplcated with Howard technology.  Most of my students make prints with
direct and simple techniques.  A switch to Keith Howard's approach would
not be a big deal now, their techniques are rather unsophisticated at the
start.  Many of the mature artist's I have printed for need to use more
exotic or mixed techniques to achieve their results. The Howard approach
can be a part of their process but it can't replace every technique they
might use.  It is just one more. Two:......I have nothing against the
Howard approch where it will work for a image, it works well, but I don't
like the implication that everything else is unsafe if the Howard Technique
is "Safe Printmaking".  Safe printmaking is an attitude and a goal, not
simply a technique.

     Michael Morin
Celtic Press-Buffalo NY


At 06:45 AM 3/1/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>The Keith Howard approach to safer printmaking is a wonderful
>>addition to a long tradition and has a great place for those schools or
>>individuals who don't have the resources or training to provide the proper
>>environment for a wider range of chemistry, that if misused, could be very
>>dangerous.
>
>Not sure if this is what you intended, but the implication here is that
>there is no inherent value in the processes Keith has developed beyond the
>fact that they are safer than traditional methods. I don't think that they
>are just for schools and individuals without proper resources or training.
>I work with a print studio that has state of the art safety equipment, and
>they choose to use many of the non-toxic printmaking methods he has
>developed simply because the quality of the finished print is terrific.
>


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]