[DCRM-L] illustration technique / reproduction technique

[Matthew Ducmanas]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer, Erin. You eloquently put to words
that distinction that I was muddling over.

In those situations where both are known the addition of both terms and a
note strikes me as the ideal solution. I'm reminded of my studio
art courses in undergrad. At times an instructor would show us work in
class (digitized, reproduced in books, etc.) and sometimes we'd go to
special collections and look at the originals themselves. Both had their
own pedagogical aims just as users might approach the bibliographic record
through one or the other illustration genre terms.

Thanks again,
Matt

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Erin Blake <EBlake at folger.edu> wrote:

> 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  |  office tel. +1 202-675-0323
> <%2B1%20202-675-0323>  |  fax +1 202-675-0328  |  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 <matthew.ducmanas at temple.edu>*
>
> *215-204-20157*
>



-- 
*Matthew Ducmanas*
*Special Collections Cataloging Librarian*
*Temple University Libraries*
*Philadelphia, Pa.*
*matthew.ducmanas at temple.edu <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/afad1401/attachment.html>