Camnitzer's Colony

Camnitzer, "There are so few good printmakers' prints. By good, I don't mean technically stunning or visually stimulating. By good I mean prints that seriously affect the way we see things or the way we think about them."

I open with this because i feel that is a bold statement for the author to make. He doesn't describe any printmakers having "good" prints. I don't understand how he can say a "good" print must have these requirements when, apparently, none have. He didn't even describe any examples of painters or other artists who, "create art that seriously affect the way we see things or the way we think about them." Therefore, how are we supposed to by into his ideas if they are not backed up. Many of his assumptions and personal statements seem to fall short because he is only assuming and not backing them up with actual facts. This makes it hard for me to believe him.

Although, I did agree that, "it actually is much cheaper to produce a painting than a print. I had just had this discussion the previous week. The resources the produce prints (print presses) are so incredibly expensive that it couldn't even compare to the most expensive oil paints, canvases, or tools used to paint. In this way, it may be harder to have print makers make the authors definition of "good" prints because there are many less people about to attain the resources to print. If you don't have a printing press, how will you make prints? There is only a limited number of printing processes that don't require a large press.

He then goes on to make assupmtions of what a "good" painter is withough backing up his thoughts. "Primarily, a good painter is celebrated for the ability to appropriate an old medium to the point that it "seems" to have been inescapably invented for 'that' particular image". Why is his definition for "good" painter different from a "good" print. If this case is true, that the two mediums have different definitions of what is "good", then I do not think the two can even be compared.