baba-prague
Huck said:Ah, ..it only has something to do with why you think it promising to write to the English library and me not.
I think that may have more to do with communication skills than gender.
When started woodcut printing?
I think that may have more to do with communication skills than gender.
Rosanne
When I was looking into Mary Magadelene, I followed up on the 'Indulgences' that were sold to poor people for money. Indulgences were printed out from woodblocks to look like handwriting around the time of the German printing out of Cards in Mainz somewhere before 1380. I think if I remember correctly it was around the court of Richard the II. People bought the indulgences because they had been playing cards and dice games(or worse) and that was a sin. ~Rosanne
HudsonGray
There may be something useful on this Canadian site, it's a university URL -- http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/sreimer/ms-course/bibliog/bib-bkp.htm
Check out the bottom, they talk about early manuscripts, early printing and the first publishers. Woodcuts are mentioned on the page.
Check out the bottom, they talk about early manuscripts, early printing and the first publishers. Woodcuts are mentioned on the page.
Huck
baba-prague said:Well, you don't have to believe me. St Brides is famous and has been for a very long time. Call up any serious German typographer and ask them!!
Not all material for research is on the internet you know. In fact, serious original research still usually requires research libraries (as in physical libraries that have original source material - or at least books and research papers that are too recent to be on the web - for copyright reasons or whatever). One day this will change - but it certainly hasn't yet. If you don't want to do that level of research (and why should you?) then indeed, you may have to make do with some vagueness and assumptions. Or Wikipedia
Hm .. there are two certain problems ... point 1: early printing didn't happen in England ... point 2: and if the mateial in English is so good as you claim that it is, some of these English speaking scholars wouldn't have left the opportunity to give a few good articles in the web to the topic. So ... where are these?
And a third: If this point would be so clear to them, then there would be not this confusion, some talking this and others something different. Typical for an undecided situation in research. Likely they've no sure evidence for this "around 1400".
Huck
Rosanne said:
There is no woodcut extant before the production date 1418 (suspicion ?) / 1423 (sure) ... as far I know.
In Mainz was the book printing developed once. I don't know of early playing cards produced there.
Cerulean
Early woodblock prints from circa 868...in a small context
If one accepts this:
...Like paper, also the woodblock printing technique was developped in China. The oldest book made of woodblocks known so far, is the Diamond Sutra from Dunhuang - dated to 868. This book is of such high technical standard, that a much earlier use of Chinese woodblock prints can be assumed....
...the first woodblock prints were of religious kind. Buddhist worshippers used woodblock printmaking to copy images of Saints and religious amulets. During the Song Dynasty (960 - 1278) lavishly decorated books were produced using woodblocks.
During the Ming Dynasty (1368 - 1644) the technique was for the first time used for artistic purposes - to reproduce ink paintings, letters and poems like the Ten Bamboo Studio Collection.
http://www.artelino.com/articles/chinese-woodblock-prints.asp
Perhaps this might suggest parallels in the Western-Eastern trade flow that might touch on when the West first used this printing method consistently.
Regards,
Cerulean
If one accepts this:
...Like paper, also the woodblock printing technique was developped in China. The oldest book made of woodblocks known so far, is the Diamond Sutra from Dunhuang - dated to 868. This book is of such high technical standard, that a much earlier use of Chinese woodblock prints can be assumed....
...the first woodblock prints were of religious kind. Buddhist worshippers used woodblock printmaking to copy images of Saints and religious amulets. During the Song Dynasty (960 - 1278) lavishly decorated books were produced using woodblocks.
During the Ming Dynasty (1368 - 1644) the technique was for the first time used for artistic purposes - to reproduce ink paintings, letters and poems like the Ten Bamboo Studio Collection.
http://www.artelino.com/articles/chinese-woodblock-prints.asp
Perhaps this might suggest parallels in the Western-Eastern trade flow that might touch on when the West first used this printing method consistently.
Regards,
Cerulean
baba-prague
Huck said:
Huck, these arguments simply make no sense. Good scholars will publish in peer-reviewed academic papers first and foremost - many of which are not freely available on the web (they need their subscriptions). Secondly, to say "early printing didn't happen in England" isn't an argument at all - St Brides is probably the best respected library of print (and type) history in the world (certainly in Europe). Do you really suppose that they would have that reputation if they restricted themselves to English history? I'm sorry to say it, but that truly is an absurd assumption that isn't worthy of you. For the record, I worked with a very eminent typographer who is based in France but who virtually lived at St Brides when he wrote his "opus magnum" on type - St Brides is not parochial!
Edited to add. But if you can't/won't contact anywhere in the UK, it just occurred to me that you can of course contact a good reearch centre or library in Germany. There must be at least one that specialises - wouldn't Ulm be a good place to start?
I (of course) never told you that the exact date of the first woodblock prints would be clear to anyone. We are talking historical research. As someone who has done some research you well know that some points in history aren't clear - right? What I said (and I think I said it carefully) is that if you want what you said you want - good research with no assumptions, and backed up by proper sources - then you at the very least have to look to some of the premier research centres. But research centres are not godlike - they don't have ALL the answers - they do, however, have the materials and people to provide the best answers currently available.
But this conversation is becoming a bit silly. Obviously, you want to get your information exclusively from what's published publicly on the web - do I understand this right? There is no problem about that if you are doing this primarily as a personal interest and don't plan to publish in an academic setting. But please be prepared to realise that you may then have to put up with the lack of accuracy that you were complaining about in your initial post - and this means that your final conclusions may well reflect that inaccuracy. If you want better, and to be certain that you have access to the best research currently available (and I understood from your original post that this is what you were asking for - otherwise what was the purpose of the question you posted?) - then you really do have to go to recent ("recent" as in not out of copyright so not freely available on the web) books and academic journals. If you don't want (or have time) to do that, then just accept that you will not have the best possible research at your disposal. It's your choice.
But please, in future, can we clearly flag the purpose of posts here? I ask that in all friendliness. If they are requests to contribute original material to academic (or academic level) research that's one thing. If they are more speculative musings about known facts, that's another, and both are valid. But please let's not dress one up as the other - that only leads to wasted energy. I think the only reason I replied in the first place was that I rather objected to your implication that print scholars make "assumptions" and was surprised by it. But then I wondered if in fact you'd read any serious work by any real print scholars? If not, I can now well see why your misunderstanding arose. Please - next time don't be so dismissive of a field that you aren't familiar with. The serious type historians I know (I know few print historians - which is why I can't answer your question myself - only try to point you to someone who can) tend to be extremely thorough.
I'll say no more - I feel I am back supervising post-grad students (I don't mean that to sound patronising, but you know, telling academic students not to just rely on the most to-hand materials is one of the things one does in the first session or two). This isn't a role I want to reprise here!
Good luck with finding the material you are seeking on the web. As I said before, I will read your results with interest.
baba-prague
HudsonGray said:
Hudson, many thanks, that's a good catalogue and if no-one else here uses it, then at some point I'd like to have a look at some of these myself (not right now though, I'm a bit tied up on other stuff!)
Cerulean, thanks for reminding us again that woodblock was used in Asia long before it came to Europe. I think it's too easy to ask about "the first woodblock prints" without making it clear that what's being talked about is in fact "the first woodblock prints in Europe." Always good to be reminded that the West is not the centre of the world!
Roseanne - sorry, meant to say thanks for the suggestion about printed indulgences. That sounds like a really good line to pursue - do you happen to have any references (print or web) to that material? I love the idea, by the way, that printing gave the Church the ability to begin to make an industry from indulgences - interesting how these things work!
Huck
baba-prague said:
Hi Baba,
in my initial post to the theme I made plainly clear, that I don't claim to be expert in early woodcut printing ... which doesn't mean, that I eat everything, what I get on my spoon.
In contrary to our novice position in matters to early woodcut printing we've made a lot of things to early playing cards and Tarot cards ... and if you think, there are much others, who did this better, then you've to talk about names.
In our work - in which we know details, from which we know, that others don't know them - it's a natural observation, that's there is a wave of indications of "more playing cards activities in the 1420's than before". This we do state, and - although researching a lot of background material - we're simply not aware, that somebody marked this noted difference in the time-scale.
So in the recent posts I've given arguments in a form (with referring links etc.), that everybody could understand the idea.
This (our observation) I correlate to this, what is generally known and presented to theories about woodcut development and I perceive that our research has created a contradiction.
So I do present the contradiction and ask for definite arguments, which make a datation of "about 1400" for a woodcut engraving start necessary. The appearance of the term Formschneider and the apearance of textil-printing I cannot recognize as a "definite argument", which has anything to do with the "real production technic" of playing cards.
The advice to talk to some relevant specialists in the St. Brides library I took, but naturally I correlated it to already done researches and life experiences, if this is a "promising research way" - I also deal with my energies.
So I told you about my doubts.
Thanks for your advice.
baba-prague
Huck said:
You told me your doubts. I told you why in research terms they make absolutely no sense. I certainly have given you the kind of advice that anyone interested in real research would give.
Let's leave it at that shall we. But please - no more dissing of current print research without basis. I'm not sure anyone here has shown themselves in a position to write off other people's work as "assumptions", expecially without having read it! If you remember, you began this thread by saying:
Huck said:
Well, I appreciate the dramatic intent, but again, how can you say what the research consists of when you have only read the comparatively paltry bit of stuff that's on the web? How can you hope to "bring light" into an area which, by your own admission, you know nothing about and don't have time or inclination to research into properly? It does seem curious - although if this was all supposed to be a speculative "chatty" kind of thread, then of course that's a different matter. I am laughing as I say this and being as friendly as I can be, so please don't take this the wrong way. But please also, let's not, as I say, dismiss other people's research unread.
You did indeed make it quite clear that you are a novice in this field. Can I respectfully suggest again that you consult or read someone who isn't before coming to any "conclusions"?
Oh, by the way, I'm just curious. When you say you "deal with your energies" what do you mean? Are you saying that you do some of your research based on hunch?
You don't have to answer that, I am kind of teasing.