Talk:List of printmakers

Untitled

Hi Johnbod - A question came up as I was going through the various Printmaking category pages and adding artists to the 'List of printmakers' page... I am not sure what to do about the Havell family page - keep them as the one family or list each member separately (leaving a problem about how to link each family member to their respective pages)? I would prefer to list individuals as opposed to families where possible but in this instance the way that the page is created, it will make cross linking difficult. Let me know if you have any thoughts! Thanks! Merteuil 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would leave it as it is - only the first two are really notable in their own right, and then mainly because of the connection to Audubon, which to some extent they shared. There are many Grench and Dutch/Flemish dynasties like this, and sometimes I think a family article may be justified (see Cosmati - an extreme case where one could hardly do otherwise). I think only Jr really needs to be on the list, with maybe a mention of the others in brackets.

We've going well I think - it could really go to mainspace now & maybe we'll get some more help - do you agree?

Thanks for your help Johnbod 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Additions

I just dropped in a few names, and then I realized: are monotypes not technically prints? The new category would include Degas and a number of other artists. JNW 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they should definitely go in - we have Castiglione, but I haven't added Mo to the key which I'll do. Mertreuil & I are working from the categories, which are even more incomplete than usual for C19 people. We are trying to use "printmakers" rather than "etchers/engravers" etc, which are incomplete & often just wrong. Thanks for your help! Johnbod 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. JNW 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Now the list is filling up, I think the basic choice of format is looking more & more sensible - we have fairly digestible section-lists. My approach to cross-period people, btw, is to put them in the first period in which they would have become notable, unless they definitely seem more associated with the next period - all as far as one can tell of course. For some artists notability hits in their early twenties, for others much later. Johnbod 01:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had to pause on where to put Prendergast, whose life and association with the Eight place him well into the 20th century, yet the bulk of his monotypes seem to have been done in the 1890s. JNW 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, looking at John Constable, I've just added [[1]], which raises the question of whether artists like him and Raphael should be in as collaborative printmakers, even if they never touched a plate. I think yes - plenty of woodcut artists did not cut their own blocks. Any thoughts? - Johnbod 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a very good question, and I must agree with you. To take the hard line (no pun intended) and deny Constable or Raphael entry into the category would seem to put more emphasis on the 'manual' process than on the conceptualization and creation of the piece. However, one could well ask whether the original artist had a decisive role in the process--I am reminded of the market that boomed in the 1970s for Norman Rockwell lithos, which were basically color copies of his paintings, and which he had no part in. It finally comes down to answering the question: what was the master's involvement?

By the way, it looks like our simultaneous editing resulted in several printmakers being listed twice. JNW 04:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I think where, as with Titian or Raphael, there are drawings specially for the prints, or as with Constable, proof prints worked over by the artist, that is enough. Rockwell presumably not - Damien Hirst? well he doesn't seem to touch any of his work. Reynolds I'm not sure.

I expect the duplicates are me. I've done the C19 americans, which was me in the edit conflict - were there others? It looks ok. Off to bed now Johnbod 04:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Joseph de Montalegre

[2] - an article would be greatly appreciated... Thanks! //Urbourbo (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why was "Woodcut" category removed? Why does "Wo" signify "Mezzotints"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heisstudying (talk • contribs) 14:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories

Understanding the categories of printmaking are very confusing (with the current system, using acronyms for "Key to Techniques"). I suggest we move the layout towards using sortable tables with a column for printmaking technique. I am happy to hear other peoples suggestions on this too though, please add them here. Joojay (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I made an edit today to add columns in order to reduce the scroll on this page, it was really hard to read. I also removed the category called "active" since half of the printmakers (in that header) are no longer living people. No printmakers or details were removed during that migration. Joojay (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)