Lithography works on the principle that grease and water repel each other. There is no carving involved. The artist draws on a stone with a greasy crayon and then covers the stone with a thin film of water. the oily ink will stick to the greasy image but not to the water-covered areas.
Zulema that’s a good question and I think best answer is probably in 2:53 – 3:00.
just give them a link to this video lol
archaic imaging method.
shit how am I supposed to do that in art class ._. i want to try doing lithography as my final medium but oh my god this process it’s so complicated ._.
Very very cool. Thanks for such a succinct video of a complicated process!
Definitely a time-consuming process. Those old practices are truly an art. We are so unrefined in some ways theses days compared to these aged methods. I was taken back by this, but should I really be? People used to work a lot harder back then and therefore feel more gratification with what they had done with their hands. Man sometimes I wish I could just simply get into something like this and not worry about anything else. Just be utterly absorbed in my craftsmanship
the image and non-image area is etched? that doesn’t make sense to me. can someone please explain?
I’m fairly certain that the opposite is true, and that we ALL agree with konzwambii. All being inclusive only of those who care one way or another. Extra points to k for not circularly repeating their argument and getting snide and petty.
A reasonable and calm approach is generally the best one in an argument
(don’t worry – I won’t start repeating that for emphasis without further elaboration. That would be unreasonable.)
Of course I know what a Wacom tablet is. That is like me asking if you know what a palette is. The degree of tactility on a graphics tablet misses the real point. My point had to do with the many levels of “indirectness” in digital processes, which may work fine for commercial results. And, as I’ve said repeatedly, its defenders never mention just how the image gets printed onto paper. Your defense of digital “art” leaves all these issues unaddressed. A big part of printmaking is printing.
You really are only proving further that you don’t know how digital art is created. Do you know what a wacom tablet is? Have you personally used one? I have worked with different types of printmaking and painting on a wacom is no less tactile. Funny thing is that artists were using your same argument toward printmaking when it was first introduced. People said it was simply a commercial product and wasn’t art. But go ahead and blab on and on about your pointless argument. No one agrees with you.
[2] created by the hand of the artist. The less direct the process, the less artistic, by definition. For some peculiar reason, advocates of “the digital medium” never state just how the digital result is printed. Why? Because, by definition, then it cannot be artistic in the best sense of the word. A digital file of ones and zeroes sent to a computerized printer is far, far removed from any hope of rising above being just another disposable commercial product.
You have no basis whatsoever to know how familiar I am with any graphic process. You refer to “the digital medium”, which is actually quite meaningless. There are digital processes, but calling it a “medium” hardly conveys the actual means used. Printmaking involves a method of printing, which might be by hand rubbing, on an etching press, on a litho press, by silk screen, etc, any of which can produce artistic results because they directly print the plate or substrate that was directly [cont'd]
I will state again that you are obviously not familiar with the digital medium. It’s the artist not the tool.
2) to make room for the computerized printer. It is in the end mechanical, unlimited, and detached. I stand by every comment I made, including that no great work of art will ever come of such methods. If it ever does, I will be the first to acknowledge it, but don’t hold your breath.
1) I did not state categorically that digital processes involve photography, but they certainly may. My big complaint with digital processes, as for art, is that much sensitivity and personal nuance is gone by definition, because it is filtered in numerous ways by software and hardware. My other serious complaint is there is no “artistic” way of printing it to paper. Gone is the artist/printmaker, [cont'd]
You obviously have no experience with the digital medium. The fact that you say it involves photography proves my point. The digital PAINTER starts from a hand drawn sketch. Evey mark mad is done consciously and with artistic purpose. And to call digital artist’s lazy is laughable. I would like to see your “Art”. I work traditionally and digitally and digital art takes MORE time and effort than traditional. The paintbrush is no more artistic than the wacom pen- its the artist not the tool.
yo damn why didn’t he just print money instead of a stupid picture of a tree after all that trouble HA!! jk. lighten up people.
- hahahaha
Wow, that was a really complicated way to draw a picture.
Well, in the end what is important in my opinion is the image that an artist’s work results in, who cares what method used…
Say what you want about digital, but it does come out with some nice results- and you seem to forget that lithography and similar processes were made to do the exact same thing; to make many copies of the same print.
The proof, as I said before, is that no great work of art has been (or will be) the result of digital processes. These processes have value in a commercial, not artistic, sense.
Something else? Sorry, but I do not accept such methods as artistic. While I might use photo retouching or drawing software for various commercial purposes, I would not call the result art, no matter how it is printed. They are all too far from the hand of the artist, which traditional printmaking methods allow. They also defy “meaningfulness” because they are potentially unlimited in quantity. It is not just a question of artists accepting the latest tools. [cont'd]
The term digital suggests computer software, but may just as easily include digital photographic methods. Notice I said “if” in case that was not what you meant. I realize there are levels of skill and control involved in getting the best results from any printing process. But none of this has anything to do with creating good art. You call digital work a “medium”, but do not say how any such print is actually printed. Would it be a giclee print? A digital dye transfer? [cont'd]
Who said anything about photography, first of all. And even with photography, getting a GOOD print is not as easy as just taking a thumbdrive to Kinkos. And your opinion of digital work betrays a lack of experience with the medium. Shame.