You substantiate my thoughts with researched information! I appreciate
hearing from you. Like you, I'm fortunately not a computer addict. Although
I have a lot of ideas and I love to communicate them, my computer is just a
tool. I use my truck at least twice a day, but I'm not a truck nut either.
At 8:50 PM 10/15/97, Ashley W Pritchard wrote:
>To Mark, James & Melissa
> I have finally got the chance to go through all of my E-mail this
>evening and have read all of your opinions concerning monoprins and
>monotypes. Currently I have been able to do some research into the topic.
>I have been taught that monoprint is synomonous with monotype from my
>print making teacher.
> The process of making a monoprint/monotype is when you use some
>type of plate(metal, glass, plexiglass) with ink or paint rolled on and
>the design whiped away or the design done in a freehand style. The design
>is then transfered onto paper by placing the paper on top of the plate and
>rubbing the back of the the paper with some type of impliment or the plate
>ane paper is ran through a press together.
> In my research of this topic I came to a book titled Print Making
>with Monotype by Rasmusen. On pages 50-7 I found evidence in support of
>what I have learned. Monotype origonally was a term coined for a
>tyesetting method in the printing trade but has become synomonous with the
>term monoprint. The first people to coint the term monoprint were Harry
>Bertoia, Robert Broner, James Fitzsimmons and Charles Smith. The term
>monoprint is the most popular of the two terms and is accepted by museums
>and galleries making monoprint the prefered name of this process.
> Monoprints are not prints produced as one-offs (proofs)
>uneditioned, these are called printers proofs which are a kind of
>trial/test run of the plate. A monoprint can also be made with multiple
>plate registerings, layering colors on top of colors. Prints made with a
>screen are not monoprints they are called screen print and are a competely
>different type of process.
> I hope that this gives everyone concerned over the debate of
>monoprint/monotype some clearity and distinction between the two terms. I
>appologize for my dely in addressing the issue, fortunately I am not a
>University of Arizona