[DCRM-L] illustration technique / reproduction technique

[Erin Blake]

Great question. One of the points I like to make when teaching "The History of Printed Book Illustration in the West" at Rare Book school is that, from the 19th century onward, "illustration technique" and "printing technique" don't always match.

My go-to example for class discussion is an 1860s edition of Mr. Sponge's Sporting Tour. The list of illustrations is headed "Engravings on steel" even though they're  actually transfer lithographs of steel engravings (which were printed from steel plates in the first edition, 1853). So… what are they, engravings or lithographs? The point of the discussion is to explore the divide between "illustration technique" as an aesthetic choice and "printing technique" as a practical matter of book production. People in class generally come around to agreeing that the illustration technique is steel engraving, and the printing technique is transfer lithography, so both terms are appropriate.

If it's institutional policy to provide access to specific types of print, and you know for-sure what both are, then I'd provide both terms in the 655, and an explanatory note, e.g. "Illustrated with lithographically reproduced etchings."

However…. as you say, it can be impossible to tell the difference between a wood engraving and a stereotype of a wood engraving. The safe bet would be to use the broader term "Relief prints" and move on. Maybe someone down the line will find the answer in the publisher's archives. That also lets you know that you didn't just forget to add the 655.

Cheers,

Erin.

________

Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Head of Collection Information Services  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu<mailto:eblake at folger.edu>  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323<tel:%2B1%20202-675-0323>  |  fax +1 202-675-0328<tel:%2B1%20202-675-0328>  |  www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu/>





From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Matthew Ducmanas
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 8:47 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] illustration technique / reproduction technique

Hi all,

I recently posed a question regarding illustrations to some former Rare Book School colleagues as well as the always helpful Deborah J. Leslie. She suggested I might ask it here as well.

The question pertains largely to those of you who regularly trace illustration types in your records. Is there a common practice when tracing reproductions of illustrations that differ in technique?

For example, if you have an item containing wood engravings that have been either stereotyped or reproduced in some photoengraved fashion, do you still use a 655 for wood engravings? Or do you leave the tracing off, or use something like 655 Line blocks?

I can see utility in tracing an illustration made from a stereotyped wood engraving block as "Wood engravings" since the stereotype would make such a close reproduction (not to even mention the difficulty of telling it apart from one printed from the original block).

Though I imagine there has to be limits to this approach otherwise we'd end up in the strange situation of, for example, tracing a relief halftone or offset lithograph reproduction as the original illustrative technique. I've seen books with relief halftone reproductions of etchings. Seems wrong to trace that as an etching.

Just curious if any of you have mulled over this at all or know of a common practice.

Thanks,
Matt

--
Matthew Ducmanas
Special Collections Cataloging Librarian
Temple University Libraries
Philadelphia, Pa.
matthew.ducmanas at temple.edu<mailto:matthew.ducmanas at temple.edu>
215-204-20157
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20170105/41c3a5af/attachment-0001.html>