Talk:Wood engraving

[Untitled]

Personally, I think this article should be broken up into two, one on wood cutting and one on wood engraving. Though they both use the same material, the technique, tools and outcome differ significantly. Most histories of grapic arts make the distinction (vide Megg's History of Graphic Design or Ivins' How Prints Look and Prints and Visual Communication). But I don't feel sufficiently passionate about the difference (which to the layman is inconsequential) to make the change myself. Any art history students out there?

Good idea. Then woodcut, Frans Masereel etc can get a look in. But i've done enough for tonight... Hopefully some other graphic arts types will be popping by...

I want to put in another vote for not merging the woodcut and wood-engraving articles. I also found a few graphic arts books that make a clear distinction, including the old text, History of Wood-Engraving by Bliss. It appears that wood-engraving came quite a bit later than wood-cutting. Alas, alot of sources seem to confuse terms when it comes to describing the various print forms. If some art history person would add info to the woodcut article and make the differences apparent, mankind could be enlightened. I'm actually in the middle of some research on Renaissance prints, but I'm not really an art-historian...

There should be separate articles about woodcut and wood engraving

There is an enormous difference between woodcut and wood engraving, not just in the technical aspects but also in the appearance and visual impact of each art form.

To combine the articles in one would be counterintuitive, confusing to non-artists and generally counterproductive.

I hope in the near future to add information - and possibly articles - to this part of the encyclopedia but first I have to become sufficiently familiar with using 'wiki' to make my contributions useful and stylistically acceptable to the site.

Freiherrin 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. There must be an absolute confusion in the minds of the public, when even the British Museum gets it wrong [1] describing a woodengraving as a RELIEF print. Perhaps one of the main problems is a reluctance to call artists who produce woodcuts as woodcutters. Both Paul Nash & Gwen Raverat were woodcutters only, yet there are books on The Woodngravings of Paul Nash & The Woodengravings of Gwen RaveratLabocetta (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Just as a person who originally began this article (not that this should neccesarily carry any weight, mind you) I also think that the two articles should remain separate, although they ought to be properly differentiated for the layman. The two are indeed very different. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Woodcut and wood engraving are indeed very different, using very different tools and materials. Contemporary printmakers do not use the terms interchangeably. I note wikipedia has a "woodblock printing" article as well, which seems very confusing. Contemporary printmakers may use the terms "woodblock printing" to refer to the method used to print a "woodcut print"-a print made from a block prepared using woodcut tools. Hence, "woodblock printing" and "woodcut" have more conceptual interchangeability than "woodcut" and "wood engraving".

Re the above unattributed para. on woodblock printing - this refers almost exclusively to oriental work. I do not recall having heard any contemporary printmaker having said that s/he was executing a woodblock print - it is either woodcut or wood engraving. And in the determination of technique one has to be extremely careful. It is easy to mistake a woodblock print's fineness of line (usually considered one of the deciding criteria in identifying a wood engraving) for that of an engraving - I have seen antique Japanese cherrywood blocks so finely carved as to rival the finest lines of the best wood engravers - but still not done on endblocks.Freiherrin (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, I hope

The two articles should certainly NOT be merged, they are different techniques, as everybody above I think agrees. In the C19 they were often referred to confusingly, but now this is no longer the case. The 1911 EB was (typically) rather old-fashioned in continuing the confusion - AM Hind's books, published from 1908 onwards, use the modern terms. I hope I have solved the problem by a rewrite of the first para, a few touches elsewhere & mainly by removing the account below of woodcut. This is fuller than in the current woodcut article & maybe could be worked in there, so I copy here. It needs some updating & linking.

The real problem is the number of articles on artists etc which continue to call them wood-engravers etc when they worked in woodcut. I think the Dürer article did this until I recently worked on it & dozens more still do.

Here's the para I cut:

"The original method — which is more precisely termed wood cutting, since it used a knife rather than engraving tools — was developed around 1400. The outlines of the design to be engraved were put down on a side of smooth-grained wood, and, usually with a knife, the excess surface of the wood block (all but the lines) would be cut away, a process called blocking. This left a set of raised wooden lines on the face of the block. In order make a print of this engraving, thick ink was applied to the raised design. This is known as a relief. Finally, a sheet of paper (or other material) was pressed firmly against the wood in order to assure that all the lines printed. This method led directly to the development of the printing press, and the 1453 introduction of a press using movable type by Johann Gutenberg." Johnbod 01:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On woodblock - this as a term for the technique itself, or for the finished print, in my view (& that of many books I have seen) should be used only for the Asian traditions & for blockbooks from the C15. Otherwise we do get confused. I think the relevant articles now have enough dismbiguation & links at the top of them so that people can find the article they want. Johnbod 01:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as all comments are against the merge, I will remove the tag Johnbod 17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List

I don't think Thomas Nast cut his own wood engravings, and I'm not so sure about Dore either. Perhaps there is a section of the list on artists who had significant output designing wood engravings to which Winslow Homer could be added. What about Blair Hughes-Stanton? Surely he belongs with that Golden Cockerel Press crowd already in the list. Also, didn't Ward use more conventional woodcut techniques? Mddietz 18:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes-Stanton and Mervyn Taylor definitely require recognition. Another section, outlining the revival of w/e as an art form, the rise of the small presses and the current state of wood engraving should be dealt with. Re Lynd Ward, check out this excellent site that will disabuse you of the idea that he was a cutter, not an engraver: http://www.beaverpond.com/Ward.html

Furthermore there is an exceptional book - British Wood-Engraved Book Illustration 1904-1940: A Break With Tradition by Dr. Joanna Selborne - excerpts of which might be used to explain the different types of wood engraving: white line, black line etc etc.Freiherrin (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the list, to which I added several names which are red: please do not delete them; think of them as flags for articles that are required as these artists made significant contributions to the art as well as to art in general.Freiherrin (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There ought to be more detail on this technique, including that the wood used these days can be boxwood (trad.) or maple, with some engravers actually going right out of wood and into something called Resingrave(believe it is a trademark). The company that produced the blocks, Lawrence (http://www.lawrence.co.uk/acatalog/End_Grain_Hardwood_Blocks.html) is undergoing changes and the new generation is not keen on carrying on the tradition. There should be a discussion as to the stylistic and technical characteristics of various engravers and schools. Some, like Barry Moser, for example, have essentially worked themselves out of the medium. There are not many artists such as Bernard Brussel-Smith or Garrick Palmer or Paul Landacre who will sit contentedly (or temperamentally) over a block for months - even years - producing the extremely finely cut, intricately composed works that qualify as masterworks. A fast browse through wood engravers' works shows that many remain in a jolly vernacular that uses exaggeration, satire, even schmaltz, recalling the good old days of the 19th c. Or they are rigorously naturalistic but leave something to be desired, compositionally and in terms of content.

I may provide detailed descriptions of the various types of wood engraving (white line, black line etc) but it will take a bit of time.

Incidentally, I am working on an article on Brussel-Smith; perhaps another person can tackle Landacre,who has attained iconic status. BBS and Eichenberg rejuvenated the medium in the US; Landacre belonged to an earlier generation.Freiherrin (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There don't seem to be many (=? any other) current editors with knowledge of the subject. I watch the page, but know very little about modern work in the medium. So go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod - OK but it will take a little while (have other projects on the go); I would say I have deep knowledge of the subject and of the works (and histories)of a number of artists. What I have noticed on this site is that, if a comment has been published, even if it is a bad, incorrect or biased statement, it can be used to support a subtly slanted assessment that will make it through every wiki hoop. However, if one has extensive knowledge of the field and of the artists' works, and one makes a statement based on this knowledge, it is usually cut out by some overly zealous editor. And wikipedia's greatest weakness is precisely that - the presence of too many people who do not actually know the field they are working in and who also don't know how properly to edit an article. I have been a writer/editor/journalist for 44 years yet I can contribute articles to this project which then are slashed or rewritten by people who do not have the same knowledge - of the subject as well as the editing process - that I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freiherrin (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary spelling revisions

This is specifically re "organization/organisation". As mentioned in the wikipedia article on the word, the Oxford English Dictionary itself says there is no reason to use the -ise form. So why be precious? Let us hope there won't be any more silliness on this.Freiherrin (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]