Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Terminology

Expand Messages
  • hamburgerbuntpapier_de
    Anthony, a description is based on something you see. That there are chemicals used in very many Western marbled patterns (and not just in those you mention as
    Message 1 of 27 , Aug 27, 2012
      Anthony,

      a description is based on something you see. That there are chemicals used in very many Western marbled patterns (and not just in those you mention as samples) is not to be seen, it's deduced from the fact that you know about it. Of course you can go and 'invent' a term, but as very many of the substances used in marbling are chemicals this seems, at least to me, rather a futile effort. How would you draw a limit? Is ox gall to be counted as a chemical? Alum? If not, why so? And how to make the non-initiated understand and use the term with distinction?

      Better don't add to the ubiquitous confusion about the terminology of decorated papers, there's too much of that as it is.

      Susanne Krause
    • jemiljan
      Anthony, For some time now I have frequently referred to this group of patterns you ve mentioned, and others as well, as reticulated . The term
      Message 2 of 27 , Aug 27, 2012
        Anthony, For some time now I have frequently referred to this group of patterns you've mentioned, and others as well, as "reticulated". The term "reticulation" is broadly defined and has different meanings in different contexts. It can mean one thing to a biologist and something else entirely to a printmaker or jeweler, but it basically encompasses a wide variety of visual effects and surface treatments ranging from "network" to "cracks", and "veins". It was a printmaker who first informed me of the term, observing the reticulated effects in sheets of stormont and shell that I had produced.

        One could quibble over whether some of the marbled patterns are in fact truly reticulated or not, but that simply depends on how one understands the definition. My understanding of the term in this case comes from printmaking, in which an emulsion of hydrophobic inks and water results in various effects. These often bear certain similarities to the marbled patterns you mentioned as well as some of others like the Turkish pattern "kumlu". "Reticulation" is contrasted with "dispersion". All marbled patterns are forms of dispersions of color with a surfactant, but not all dispersions produce reticulation.

        At the very least, I think it is a suitable term in that it meets both Susanne's criteria for a visual description, and yours for something that encompasses the "family" of patterns that you asked about. Also, when referring to such patterns in conversation with other art historians, conservators, and rare book curators, I've mentioned this term and they all seemed to comprehend what I meant- again, because of the association with printmaking- and no one has ever objected.

        I hope this helps answer your question.

        With best wishes from Cairo,

        Jake Benson


        --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, "anthonianthonianthoni" <anthonianthonianthoni@...> wrote:
        >
        > As you may already know, there is a family of patterns of marbled paper in which the paints are mixed with chemicals to alter the effect they give, e.g, shell , stormont, tiger eye, broken, etc.
        >
        > Now, has any name been yet invented to describe this large family of patterns?. If there is no such name, what do you suggest?
        >
        > A.L
        >
      • anthonianthonianthoni
        By chemicals, I mean anything added to the paint other than pigment, water, oxgall and other such dispersants. I was toying about naming the patterns extra
        Message 3 of 27 , Aug 27, 2012
          By chemicals, I mean anything added to the paint other than pigment, water, oxgall and other such dispersants.
          I was toying about naming the patterns "extra" patterns, but I have reason to belive that this is a name for yet another pattern... Better not muddy the waters....
        • uuglypher
          An interesting and rational idea/request! However, the suggested term reticulation with its derived forms based on reticulum ( Latin; net) reticular,
          Message 4 of 27 , Aug 27, 2012
            An interesting and rational idea/request!

            However, the suggested term "reticulation" with its derived forms based on "reticulum"( Latin; net) reticular, reticulated, reticulation is, in fact, far more precise and restrictive in meaning in the terminology of design, art, biology, medicine, and engineering than has been suggested. It specifically relates to a functional and/or physical network / net-like/ web-like mode of interrelationship or pattern and certainly does not encompass the range of perceived morphologies that anthonianthonianthoni hopes to include under a single rubric. I suggest the search for a term is, indeed, justified and valid, and that we seek or construct as a neologism a term clearly encompassing on a generic basis the variety of local, " micro-environmental" morphological alterations that we all recognize and conceptually " lump" but have, as yet, no accepted term under which that specific and rationally inclusive conceptual lumping might logically be accomplished.

            Dave in South Dakota

            "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
            Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

            On Aug 26, 2012, at 5:52 PM, "anthonianthonianthoni" <anthonianthonianthoni@...> wrote:

            > As you may already know, there is a family of patterns of marbled paper in which the paints are mixed with chemicals to alter the effect they give, e.g, shell , stormont, tiger eye, broken, etc.
            >
            > Now, has any name been yet invented to describe this large family of patterns?. If there is no such name, what do you suggest?
            >
            > A.L
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • uuglypher
            Giving more thought on this ... The purposes of the effects of the additives that Anthony discusses and for which a collective term is sought are not to create
            Message 5 of 27 , Aug 27, 2012
              Giving more thought on this ...
              The purposes of the effects of the additives that Anthony discusses and for which a collective term is sought are not to create novel patterns, but to introduce characteristic design elements for incorporation within, or superimposition upon still recognizable established / extant patterns.

              Could each be termed ( and expressed as an acronym) a (an)

              Design Element "Inducer" DEI , or
              Design Element "Producer" DEP, or
              Design Element "Factor" DEF, or
              Design Element "Agent" DEA ?

              ...Resulting in the various additives being called the:
              Shell DEA or
              Stortmont DEA, or
              Tiger eye DEA, or
              Broken DEA
              ....or DEI, or DEF, or DEP...whichever acronym might be settled upon?

              Would this system or some varient thereof be acceptable / suitable?

              Thanks, Anthony, for stimulating this discussion. Whatever terminology winds up being adopted, it will, indeed, be a useful addition to the lexicon of marbling.

              Dave Graham, Estelline, SD



              "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
              Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

              On Aug 26, 2012, at 5:52 PM, "anthonianthonianthoni" <anthonianthonianthoni@...> wrote:

              > As you may already know, there is a family of patterns of marbled paper in which the paints are mixed with chemicals to alter the effect they give, e.g, shell , stormont, tiger eye, broken, etc.
              >
              > Now, has any name been yet invented to describe this large family of patterns?. If there is no such name, what do you suggest?
              >
              > A.L
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • jemiljan
              Will all due respect, Dave, while the etymology of the term you ve given is correct, I think your definition is overly precise and narrow, and doesn t reflect
              Message 6 of 27 , Aug 27, 2012
                Will all due respect, Dave, while the etymology of the term you've given is correct, I think your definition is overly precise and narrow, and doesn't reflect the way that jewelers, printmakers, and even commercial printers I know generally employ it. Maybe they're wrong in your view, but they aren't referring to physical biological networks or the functionality of engineered structures at all.

                Printmakers and offset printers use the term to refer to specific effects that can occur in ink films. For offset printers, these aberrations in the ink films, ranging from grainy, cracked, pinholed, or "rumpled" effects, and they are considered undesirable. It was often the result of too much moisture during printing (I originally trained as an apprentice pressman and worked in the industry for several years). Printmakers, on the other hand, often try and achieve these affects, typically through washes.

                Specifically, I do think that there are greater and lesser and greater degrees of reticulated effects in the range of patterns suggested. It is not "all or none". The Stormont pattern achieves maximum reticulation within the spots of the last color applies - a lacy network of bubbles- while others like shell or scrotel achieve less so, but they are still analogous to the effects observed in reticulated washes. If you look at them closely with a magnifying lens, you can often observe a type of "networked" patterns formed in the pigment particles; they just aren't as obvious, pronounced and highly regimented.

                On the other hand, a tiger-eye pattern might better be left as is. The term describes the effect perfectly. I've tended to use the term "reticulated for for the effects achieved within the spots of the Stormont, gloucester, Antique, Shell and Schrotel patterns, not Tiger Eye.

                It just seems to me that if people working with color on paper are already employing a term- whether etymologically "correct" or not- is something to consider. Are there any other printmakers are on here, who would care to comment?

                Jake Benson

                --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, uuglypher <uuglypher@...> wrote:
                >
                > An interesting and rational idea/request!
                >
                > However, the suggested term "reticulation" with its derived forms based on "reticulum"( Latin; net) reticular, reticulated, reticulation is, in fact, far more precise and restrictive in meaning in the terminology of design, art, biology, medicine, and engineering than has been suggested. It specifically relates to a functional and/or physical network / net-like/ web-like mode of interrelationship or pattern and certainly does not encompass the range of perceived morphologies that anthonianthonianthoni hopes to include under a single rubric. I suggest the search for a term is, indeed, justified and valid, and that we seek or construct as a neologism a term clearly encompassing on a generic basis the variety of local, " micro-environmental" morphological alterations that we all recognize and conceptually " lump" but have, as yet, no accepted term under which that specific and rationally inclusive conceptual lumping might logically be accomplished.
                >
                > Dave in South Dakota
                >
                > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                >
                > On Aug 26, 2012, at 5:52 PM, "anthonianthonianthoni" <anthonianthonianthoni@...> wrote:
                >
                > > As you may already know, there is a family of patterns of marbled paper in which the paints are mixed with chemicals to alter the effect they give, e.g, shell , stormont, tiger eye, broken, etc.
                > >
                > > Now, has any name been yet invented to describe this large family of patterns?. If there is no such name, what do you suggest?
                > >
                > > A.L
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • uuglypher
                With equal due respect, Jake, it would seem that when it is more than a bit-of -stretch to include a variety of introduced design elements as varieties of the
                Message 7 of 27 , Aug 27, 2012
                  With equal due respect, Jake, it would seem that when it is more than a bit-of -stretch to include a variety of introduced design elements as varieties of the effect of loosly characterized "reticulation" and to ignore their more salient common feature as, in fact, that of being an introduced design element, that the habit of some print makers to exercise semantic laxity in use of the term "reticulation" should not preclude use of the more functional and less limiting concept of " introduced design element" or of some other term of the same and more precise intent, which would, obviously include, rather than exclude "Tiger eye" from the rubric.
                  While recognizing that words can change in meaning with time, it is the good fight to urge maintenance of semantic and functional precision when possible.
                  Semantically meaningful terminology would seem to trump casually accepted obfuscating arcane argot.

                  Just points to be considered in hope of promoting more broad comprehension of a yet-to-be settled term of art.

                  Best regards,

                  Dave Graham

                  "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                  Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

                  On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:40 PM, "jemiljan" <jemiljan@...> wrote:

                  > Will all due respect, Dave, while the etymology of the term you've given is correct, I think your definition is overly precise and narrow, and doesn't reflect the way that jewelers, printmakers, and even commercial printers I know generally employ it. Maybe they're wrong in your view, but they aren't referring to physical biological networks or the functionality of engineered structures at all.
                  >
                  > Printmakers and offset printers use the term to refer to specific effects that can occur in ink films. For offset printers, these aberrations in the ink films, ranging from grainy, cracked, pinholed, or "rumpled" effects, and they are considered undesirable. It was often the result of too much moisture during printing (I originally trained as an apprentice pressman and worked in the industry for several years). Printmakers, on the other hand, often try and achieve these affects, typically through washes.
                  >
                  > Specifically, I do think that there are greater and lesser and greater degrees of reticulated effects in the range of patterns suggested. It is not "all or none". The Stormont pattern achieves maximum reticulation within the spots of the last color applies - a lacy network of bubbles- while others like shell or scrotel achieve less so, but they are still analogous to the effects observed in reticulated washes. If you look at them closely with a magnifying lens, you can often observe a type of "networked" patterns formed in the pigment particles; they just aren't as obvious, pronounced and highly regimented.
                  >
                  > On the other hand, a tiger-eye pattern might better be left as is. The term describes the effect perfectly. I've tended to use the term "reticulated for for the effects achieved within the spots of the Stormont, gloucester, Antique, Shell and Schrotel patterns, not Tiger Eye.
                  >
                  > It just seems to me that if people working with color on paper are already employing a term- whether etymologically "correct" or not- is something to consider. Are there any other printmakers are on here, who would care to comment?
                  >
                  > Jake Benson
                  >
                  > --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, uuglypher <uuglypher@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > An interesting and rational idea/request!
                  > >
                  > > However, the suggested term "reticulation" with its derived forms based on "reticulum"( Latin; net) reticular, reticulated, reticulation is, in fact, far more precise and restrictive in meaning in the terminology of design, art, biology, medicine, and engineering than has been suggested. It specifically relates to a functional and/or physical network / net-like/ web-like mode of interrelationship or pattern and certainly does not encompass the range of perceived morphologies that anthonianthonianthoni hopes to include under a single rubric. I suggest the search for a term is, indeed, justified and valid, and that we seek or construct as a neologism a term clearly encompassing on a generic basis the variety of local, " micro-environmental" morphological alterations that we all recognize and conceptually " lump" but have, as yet, no accepted term under which that specific and rationally inclusive conceptual lumping might logically be accomplished.
                  > >
                  > > Dave in South Dakota
                  > >
                  > > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                  > > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                  > >
                  > > On Aug 26, 2012, at 5:52 PM, "anthonianthonianthoni" <anthonianthonianthoni@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > As you may already know, there is a family of patterns of marbled paper in which the paints are mixed with chemicals to alter the effect they give, e.g, shell , stormont, tiger eye, broken, etc.
                  > > >
                  > > > Now, has any name been yet invented to describe this large family of patterns?. If there is no such name, what do you suggest?
                  > > >
                  > > > A.L
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • irisnevins
                  It seems almost Traditional at this point to have differing names! Centuries worth. We go through the same with Irish traditional music, people playing the
                  Message 8 of 27 , Aug 27, 2012
                    It seems almost "Traditional" at this point to have differing names! Centuries worth.

                    We go through the same with Irish traditional music, people playing the same tunes but having very often different names for them. In those circles it's considered part of the fun, I think to the point where people would refuse to agree to call them something else, say if some musical academic of some sort, maybe an "ethnomusicologist", said THESE, from now on will be the "proper" names, which shall be used in the future. They'd be laughed at frankly.

                    I think what has happened for centuries, is that if people didn't know the name of a pattern, they would make up a name they thought was appropriate. OR... in playing "telephone" as either the name of a pattern travelled, or again back to music the name of a tune, it would end up different. An example is an Irish tune called by some, The Sheep In The Boat, and by as many others, The Hole In The Boat...because the sheep kicked a hole in the boat and drowned everyone. A true event in Ireland in the mid 1800s I believe. Same for marbled patterns. Take Bouquet for example... it looks like a fan so I have heard it called Fan. or also called Peacock because it looks like a peacock's tail. What do they call Peacock I wonder. They may make something up.

                    We have a popular Irish Session tune, which I call East Of Glendart (I play Irish harp and guitar), but it also goes by:
                    The Humours Of Glendart
                    East AT Glendart
                    The Bohola
                    Shins Around The Fireside
                    The Housemaid
                    Finlay's
                    Irishman's Hearth To The Ladies
                    Humours Of Glen
                    Darby Gallagher's
                    Tim The Piper
                    The Cashel

                    And you think Marbling Patterns are bad! This goes on all the time in the music... and half the time people don't have any name at all. So we learn it by the sound of it, and remember it later as "Oh That", Or the "One that we play after whatever tune". Or they will name it for the person they learned it from, like the above example of Darby Gallaher's, surely he was known for playing that tune a lot and likely poor Darby had no clue what the name was. All I can say is Thank God there were no copyright enforcers around when most of this music originated, there would be so many suits over stealing the darned tune. Most learn the music by ear so never see sheet music with a title. Thus, there are also different "settings" of the same tune. Same tune, just a little different. Just like each sheet of marbling is different, most "ear taught" Irish musicians never play the same tune the same exact way twice. It's how you feel it at the moment. Same way there is a different hand to each person's interpretation of the same pattern. Even the same person will vary it. the art pretty much dictates that you will vary it! None of us went to the Xerox School Of Marbling, as I have tried to explain to new customers for decades.

                    So similarly I imagine that many marblers over many years from many countries came up with the same or similar patterns, and just made up the names if they didn't know them. I have certainly done it myself, with the NJ Ripple Pattern, and that name started as a joke and stuck. It's a combination of zebra with a moire folding and movement done to it. I really had no name, it was a combination of techniques. Someone put me on the spot at a show and asked me the name, so I said I don't know, why not call it NJ Ripple, for a laugh. Anyway, not sure about everyone else but I think this is a charming aspect to marbling, and to music, though it is potentially confusing, I find it a fun kind of confusing. Give a few tries and examples and it seems everyone knows what everyone means pattern-wise anyway most of the time, or nowadays shoot over a digital picture... and you get the same, "Oh THAT!". Maybe I am wrong, but I enjoy the differences and don't take it too seriously.

                    Iris Nevins
                    www.marblingpaper.com
                  • irisnevins
                    PS....Just have to add something very amusing, there is a very prolific composer (I am not sure he can even read or write music at all), named Paddy Fahey. He
                    Message 9 of 27 , Aug 27, 2012
                      PS....Just have to add something very amusing, there is a very prolific composer (I am not sure he can even read or write music at all), named Paddy Fahey. He has composed at least 60 tunes, and he calls ALL of them "Paddy Fahey's". So does everyone else. There have been attempts to number them, and they appear on many tune sites and Irish music books (he doesn't seem to mind this at all, and has never published a book himself), but the numbering system, no one pays attention or even remembers. We just laugh when asked what the tune is and say "Paddy Fahey's". The only way we can identify it if we are wanting to start one off at a session (sort of an Irish music jam) and want the others to play with us, is to just start playing it and those that recognize it from memory will join in. We use no sheet music at these things.

                      Trust me, marblers have it pretty easy when it comes to naming things!

                      Iris Nevins
                      www.marblingpaper.com



                      On 08/27/12, irisnevins<irisnevins@...> wrote:

                      It seems almost "Traditional" at this point to have differing names! Centuries worth.

                      We go through the same with Irish traditional music, people playing the same tunes but having very often different names for them. In those circles it's considered part of the fun, I think to the point where people would refuse to agree to call them something else, say if some musical academic of some sort, maybe an "ethnomusicologist", said THESE, from now on will be the "proper" names, which shall be used in the future. They'd be laughed at frankly.

                      I think what has happened for centuries, is that if people didn't know the name of a pattern, they would make up a name they thought was appropriate. OR... in playing "telephone" as either the name of a pattern travelled, or again back to music the name of a tune, it would end up different. An example is an Irish tune called by some, The Sheep In The Boat, and by as many others, The Hole In The Boat...because the sheep kicked a hole in the boat and drowned everyone. A true event in Ireland in the mid 1800s I believe. Same for marbled patterns. Take Bouquet for example... it looks like a fan so I have heard it called Fan. or also called Peacock because it looks like a peacock's tail. What do they call Peacock I wonder. They may make something up.

                      We have a popular Irish Session tune, which I call East Of Glendart (I play Irish harp and guitar), but it also goes by:
                      The Humours Of Glendart
                      East AT Glendart
                      The Bohola
                      Shins Around The Fireside
                      The Housemaid
                      Finlay's
                      Irishman's Hearth To The Ladies
                      Humours Of Glen
                      Darby Gallagher's
                      Tim The Piper
                      The Cashel

                      And you think Marbling Patterns are bad! This goes on all the time in the music... and half the time people don't have any name at all. So we learn it by the sound of it, and remember it later as "Oh That", Or the "One that we play after whatever tune". Or they will name it for the person they learned it from, like the above example of Darby Gallaher's, surely he was known for playing that tune a lot and likely poor Darby had no clue what the name was. All I can say is Thank God there were no copyright enforcers around when most of this music originated, there would be so many suits over stealing the darned tune. Most learn the music by ear so never see sheet music with a title. Thus, there are also different "settings" of the same tune. Same tune, just a little different. Just like each sheet of marbling is different, most "ear taught" Irish musicians never play the same tune the same exact way twice. It's how you feel it at the moment. Same way there is a different hand to each
                      person's interpretation of the same pattern. Even the same person will vary it. the art pretty much dictates that you will vary it! None of us went to the Xerox School Of Marbling, as I have tried to explain to new customers for decades.

                      So similarly I imagine that many marblers over many years from many countries came up with the same or similar patterns, and just made up the names if they didn't know them. I have certainly done it myself, with the NJ Ripple Pattern, and that name started as a joke and stuck. It's a combination of zebra with a moire folding and movement done to it. I really had no name, it was a combination of techniques. Someone put me on the spot at a show and asked me the name, so I said I don't know, why not call it NJ Ripple, for a laugh. Anyway, not sure about everyone else but I think this is a charming aspect to marbling, and to music, though it is potentially confusing, I find it a fun kind of confusing. Give a few tries and examples and it seems everyone knows what everyone means pattern-wise anyway most of the time, or nowadays shoot over a digital picture... and you get the same, "Oh THAT!". Maybe I am wrong, but I enjoy the differences and don't take it too seriously.

                      Iris Nevins
                      www.marblingpaper.com




                      ------------------------------------

                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • uuglypher
                      DescriptionUnit priceQtyAmountSail Making 1942 pictorial vintage Sailmaker pictorial Sailboat Sailmaking Item# 360409660599$7.49 USD1$7.49 USD Shipping and
                      Message 10 of 27 , Aug 27, 2012
                        DescriptionUnit priceQtyAmountSail Making 1942 pictorial vintage Sailmaker pictorial Sailboat Sailmaking
                        Item# 360409660599$7.49 USD1$7.49 USD

                        Shipping and handling$2.00 USDTotal$9.49 USDPayment$9.49 USD
                        Payment sent to ednmart@...

                        "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                        Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

                        On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:48 PM, irisnevins <irisnevins@...> wrote:

                        > PS....Just have to add something very amusing, there is a very prolific composer (I am not sure he can even read or write music at all), named Paddy Fahey. He has composed at least 60 tunes, and he calls ALL of them "Paddy Fahey's". So does everyone else. There have been attempts to number them, and they appear on many tune sites and Irish music books (he doesn't seem to mind this at all, and has never published a book himself), but the numbering system, no one pays attention or even remembers. We just laugh when asked what the tune is and say "Paddy Fahey's". The only way we can identify it if we are wanting to start one off at a session (sort of an Irish music jam) and want the others to play with us, is to just start playing it and those that recognize it from memory will join in. We use no sheet music at these things.
                        >
                        > Trust me, marblers have it pretty easy when it comes to naming things!
                        >
                        > Iris Nevins
                        > www.marblingpaper.com
                        >
                        > On 08/27/12, irisnevins<irisnevins@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > It seems almost "Traditional" at this point to have differing names! Centuries worth.
                        >
                        > We go through the same with Irish traditional music, people playing the same tunes but having very often different names for them. In those circles it's considered part of the fun, I think to the point where people would refuse to agree to call them something else, say if some musical academic of some sort, maybe an "ethnomusicologist", said THESE, from now on will be the "proper" names, which shall be used in the future. They'd be laughed at frankly.
                        >
                        > I think what has happened for centuries, is that if people didn't know the name of a pattern, they would make up a name they thought was appropriate. OR... in playing "telephone" as either the name of a pattern travelled, or again back to music the name of a tune, it would end up different. An example is an Irish tune called by some, The Sheep In The Boat, and by as many others, The Hole In The Boat...because the sheep kicked a hole in the boat and drowned everyone. A true event in Ireland in the mid 1800s I believe. Same for marbled patterns. Take Bouquet for example... it looks like a fan so I have heard it called Fan. or also called Peacock because it looks like a peacock's tail. What do they call Peacock I wonder. They may make something up.
                        >
                        > We have a popular Irish Session tune, which I call East Of Glendart (I play Irish harp and guitar), but it also goes by:
                        > The Humours Of Glendart
                        > East AT Glendart
                        > The Bohola
                        > Shins Around The Fireside
                        > The Housemaid
                        > Finlay's
                        > Irishman's Hearth To The Ladies
                        > Humours Of Glen
                        > Darby Gallagher's
                        > Tim The Piper
                        > The Cashel
                        >
                        > And you think Marbling Patterns are bad! This goes on all the time in the music... and half the time people don't have any name at all. So we learn it by the sound of it, and remember it later as "Oh That", Or the "One that we play after whatever tune". Or they will name it for the person they learned it from, like the above example of Darby Gallaher's, surely he was known for playing that tune a lot and likely poor Darby had no clue what the name was. All I can say is Thank God there were no copyright enforcers around when most of this music originated, there would be so many suits over stealing the darned tune. Most learn the music by ear so never see sheet music with a title. Thus, there are also different "settings" of the same tune. Same tune, just a little different. Just like each sheet of marbling is different, most "ear taught" Irish musicians never play the same tune the same exact way twice. It's how you feel it at the moment. Same way there is a different hand to each
                        > person's interpretation of the same pattern. Even the same person will vary it. the art pretty much dictates that you will vary it! None of us went to the Xerox School Of Marbling, as I have tried to explain to new customers for decades.
                        >
                        > So similarly I imagine that many marblers over many years from many countries came up with the same or similar patterns, and just made up the names if they didn't know them. I have certainly done it myself, with the NJ Ripple Pattern, and that name started as a joke and stuck. It's a combination of zebra with a moire folding and movement done to it. I really had no name, it was a combination of techniques. Someone put me on the spot at a show and asked me the name, so I said I don't know, why not call it NJ Ripple, for a laugh. Anyway, not sure about everyone else but I think this is a charming aspect to marbling, and to music, though it is potentially confusing, I find it a fun kind of confusing. Give a few tries and examples and it seems everyone knows what everyone means pattern-wise anyway most of the time, or nowadays shoot over a digital picture... and you get the same, "Oh THAT!". Maybe I am wrong, but I enjoy the differences and don't take it too seriously.
                        >
                        > Iris Nevins
                        > www.marblingpaper.com
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • uuglypher
                        Interesting, Iris, I, when not marbeling, also play the lever harp, guitar, as well as hammered dulcimer, and fiddle, and, in younger days, sat in on sessuns
                        Message 11 of 27 , Aug 27, 2012
                          Interesting, Iris,
                          I, when not marbeling, also play the lever harp, guitar, as well as hammered dulcimer, and fiddle, and, in younger days, sat in on sessuns in the Orkneys whenever I was so fortunate to return there.

                          Thanks for your input to the discussion. Can you suggest an appropriate term...traditional or otherwise...under which to classify the materials that introduce a variety of replicable local interruptions within otherwise recognized patterns about which Anthony asks? It seems reasonable to aspire at least some regularity of terminology in the craft and art to which we hope to attract new practioners, eh?

                          Dave Graham
                          Estelline, SD

                          "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                          Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

                          "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                          Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

                          On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:48 PM, irisnevins <irisnevins@...> wrote:

                          > PS....Just have to add something very amusing, there is a very prolific composer (I am not sure he can even read or write music at all), named Paddy Fahey. He has composed at least 60 tunes, and he calls ALL of them "Paddy Fahey's". So does everyone else. There have been attempts to number them, and they appear on many tune sites and Irish music books (he doesn't seem to mind this at all, and has never published a book himself), but the numbering system, no one pays attention or even remembers. We just laugh when asked what the tune is and say "Paddy Fahey's". The only way we can identify it if we are wanting to start one off at a session (sort of an Irish music jam) and want the others to play with us, is to just start playing it and those that recognize it from memory will join in. We use no sheet music at these things.
                          >
                          > Trust me, marblers have it pretty easy when it comes to naming things!
                          >
                          > Iris Nevins
                          > www.marblingpaper.com
                          >
                          > On 08/27/12, irisnevins<irisnevins@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > It seems almost "Traditional" at this point to have differing names! Centuries worth.
                          >
                          > We go through the same with Irish traditional music, people playing the same tunes but having very often different names for them. In those circles it's considered part of the fun, I think to the point where people would refuse to agree to call them something else, say if some musical academic of some sort, maybe an "ethnomusicologist", said THESE, from now on will be the "proper" names, which shall be used in the future. They'd be laughed at frankly.
                          >
                          > I think what has happened for centuries, is that if people didn't know the name of a pattern, they would make up a name they thought was appropriate. OR... in playing "telephone" as either the name of a pattern travelled, or again back to music the name of a tune, it would end up different. An example is an Irish tune called by some, The Sheep In The Boat, and by as many others, The Hole In The Boat...because the sheep kicked a hole in the boat and drowned everyone. A true event in Ireland in the mid 1800s I believe. Same for marbled patterns. Take Bouquet for example... it looks like a fan so I have heard it called Fan. or also called Peacock because it looks like a peacock's tail. What do they call Peacock I wonder. They may make something up.
                          >
                          > We have a popular Irish Session tune, which I call East Of Glendart (I play Irish harp and guitar), but it also goes by:
                          > The Humours Of Glendart
                          > East AT Glendart
                          > The Bohola
                          > Shins Around The Fireside
                          > The Housemaid
                          > Finlay's
                          > Irishman's Hearth To The Ladies
                          > Humours Of Glen
                          > Darby Gallagher's
                          > Tim The Piper
                          > The Cashel
                          >
                          > And you think Marbling Patterns are bad! This goes on all the time in the music... and half the time people don't have any name at all. So we learn it by the sound of it, and remember it later as "Oh That", Or the "One that we play after whatever tune". Or they will name it for the person they learned it from, like the above example of Darby Gallaher's, surely he was known for playing that tune a lot and likely poor Darby had no clue what the name was. All I can say is Thank God there were no copyright enforcers around when most of this music originated, there would be so many suits over stealing the darned tune. Most learn the music by ear so never see sheet music with a title. Thus, there are also different "settings" of the same tune. Same tune, just a little different. Just like each sheet of marbling is different, most "ear taught" Irish musicians never play the same tune the same exact way twice. It's how you feel it at the moment. Same way there is a different hand to each
                          > person's interpretation of the same pattern. Even the same person will vary it. the art pretty much dictates that you will vary it! None of us went to the Xerox School Of Marbling, as I have tried to explain to new customers for decades.
                          >
                          > So similarly I imagine that many marblers over many years from many countries came up with the same or similar patterns, and just made up the names if they didn't know them. I have certainly done it myself, with the NJ Ripple Pattern, and that name started as a joke and stuck. It's a combination of zebra with a moire folding and movement done to it. I really had no name, it was a combination of techniques. Someone put me on the spot at a show and asked me the name, so I said I don't know, why not call it NJ Ripple, for a laugh. Anyway, not sure about everyone else but I think this is a charming aspect to marbling, and to music, though it is potentially confusing, I find it a fun kind of confusing. Give a few tries and examples and it seems everyone knows what everyone means pattern-wise anyway most of the time, or nowadays shoot over a digital picture... and you get the same, "Oh THAT!". Maybe I am wrong, but I enjoy the differences and don't take it too seriously.
                          >
                          > Iris Nevins
                          > www.marblingpaper.com
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • uuglypher
                          Sorry, all. An inadvertent insertional error and accidental klick on unintended send ! Me culpa maxima est! There s a crack in everything; that s how the
                          Message 12 of 27 , Aug 27, 2012
                            Sorry, all. An inadvertent insertional error and accidental klick on unintended "send"!
                            Me culpa maxima est!

                            "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                            Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

                            On Aug 27, 2012, at 7:22 PM, uuglypher <uuglypher@...> wrote:

                            > DescriptionUnit priceQtyAmountSail Making 1942 pictorial vintage Sailmaker pictorial Sailboat Sailmaking
                            > Item# 360409660599$7.49 USD1$7.49 USD
                            >
                            > Shipping and handling$2.00 USDTotal$9.49 USDPayment$9.49 USD
                            > Payment sent to ednmart@...
                            >
                            > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                            > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                            >
                            > On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:48 PM, irisnevins <irisnevins@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >> PS....Just have to add something very amusing, there is a very prolific composer (I am not sure he can even read or write music at all), named Paddy Fahey. He has composed at least 60 tunes, and he calls ALL of them "Paddy Fahey's". So does everyone else. There have been attempts to number them, and they appear on many tune sites and Irish music books (he doesn't seem to mind this at all, and has never published a book himself), but the numbering system, no one pays attention or even remembers. We just laugh when asked what the tune is and say "Paddy Fahey's". The only way we can identify it if we are wanting to start one off at a session (sort of an Irish music jam) and want the others to play with us, is to just start playing it and those that recognize it from memory will join in. We use no sheet music at these things.
                            >>
                            >> Trust me, marblers have it pretty easy when it comes to naming things!
                            >>
                            >> Iris Nevins
                            >> www.marblingpaper.com
                            >>
                            >> On 08/27/12, irisnevins<irisnevins@...> wrote:
                            >>
                            >> It seems almost "Traditional" at this point to have differing names! Centuries worth.
                            >>
                            >> We go through the same with Irish traditional music, people playing the same tunes but having very often different names for them. In those circles it's considered part of the fun, I think to the point where people would refuse to agree to call them something else, say if some musical academic of some sort, maybe an "ethnomusicologist", said THESE, from now on will be the "proper" names, which shall be used in the future. They'd be laughed at frankly.
                            >>
                            >> I think what has happened for centuries, is that if people didn't know the name of a pattern, they would make up a name they thought was appropriate. OR... in playing "telephone" as either the name of a pattern travelled, or again back to music the name of a tune, it would end up different. An example is an Irish tune called by some, The Sheep In The Boat, and by as many others, The Hole In The Boat...because the sheep kicked a hole in the boat and drowned everyone. A true event in Ireland in the mid 1800s I believe. Same for marbled patterns. Take Bouquet for example... it looks like a fan so I have heard it called Fan. or also called Peacock because it looks like a peacock's tail. What do they call Peacock I wonder. They may make something up.
                            >>
                            >> We have a popular Irish Session tune, which I call East Of Glendart (I play Irish harp and guitar), but it also goes by:
                            >> The Humours Of Glendart
                            >> East AT Glendart
                            >> The Bohola
                            >> Shins Around The Fireside
                            >> The Housemaid
                            >> Finlay's
                            >> Irishman's Hearth To The Ladies
                            >> Humours Of Glen
                            >> Darby Gallagher's
                            >> Tim The Piper
                            >> The Cashel
                            >>
                            >> And you think Marbling Patterns are bad! This goes on all the time in the music... and half the time people don't have any name at all. So we learn it by the sound of it, and remember it later as "Oh That", Or the "One that we play after whatever tune". Or they will name it for the person they learned it from, like the above example of Darby Gallaher's, surely he was known for playing that tune a lot and likely poor Darby had no clue what the name was. All I can say is Thank God there were no copyright enforcers around when most of this music originated, there would be so many suits over stealing the darned tune. Most learn the music by ear so never see sheet music with a title. Thus, there are also different "settings" of the same tune. Same tune, just a little different. Just like each sheet of marbling is different, most "ear taught" Irish musicians never play the same tune the same exact way twice. It's how you feel it at the moment. Same way there is a different hand to each
                            >> person's interpretation of the same pattern. Even the same person will vary it. the art pretty much dictates that you will vary it! None of us went to the Xerox School Of Marbling, as I have tried to explain to new customers for decades.
                            >>
                            >> So similarly I imagine that many marblers over many years from many countries came up with the same or similar patterns, and just made up the names if they didn't know them. I have certainly done it myself, with the NJ Ripple Pattern, and that name started as a joke and stuck. It's a combination of zebra with a moire folding and movement done to it. I really had no name, it was a combination of techniques. Someone put me on the spot at a show and asked me the name, so I said I don't know, why not call it NJ Ripple, for a laugh. Anyway, not sure about everyone else but I think this is a charming aspect to marbling, and to music, though it is potentially confusing, I find it a fun kind of confusing. Give a few tries and examples and it seems everyone knows what everyone means pattern-wise anyway most of the time, or nowadays shoot over a digital picture... and you get the same, "Oh THAT!". Maybe I am wrong, but I enjoy the differences and don't take it too seriously.
                            >>
                            >> Iris Nevins
                            >> www.marblingpaper.com
                            >>
                            >> ------------------------------------
                            >>
                            >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >>
                            >>


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • anthonianthonianthoni
                            The discussion so far upon this topic of terminology has proves rather interesting. After some consideration, I believe that what we should be striving towards
                            Message 13 of 27 , Aug 28, 2012
                              The discussion so far upon this topic of terminology has proves rather
                              interesting.
                              After some consideration, I believe that what we should be striving towards is not a name based on the *appearance * of the pattern , but rather a description of the *method* by which the pattern is made.
                              Giving a name based on the *appearence* of this group of patterns is futile , as the patterns which I have mentioned look almost *nothing* like one another.
                              Whilst we may classify patterns like the spanish, moire, trocadero and one type of "zebra" under "spanish" , as the processes used in making them have a relativley predictable effect on the appearence of the pattern.
                              On the other hand, adding a chemical ( see my previous post for def.) to the paint hardly produces any consistant effect. for example, adding olive oil to paint causes it to farm a "shell" , whilst adding caustic soda to it will turn it to a "tiger eye". Even the same ingredient will have remakeably different effects at different doses. For example, turps when added to the paint in small amounts produces a "shell". add a bit more, and you get a stormont.
                            • jemiljan
                              Graham, The use of reticulation was an attempt to describe visual appearance based on current usage in similar fields, despite it being what linguists would
                              Message 14 of 27 , Aug 28, 2012
                                Graham,

                                The use of reticulation was an attempt to describe visual appearance based on current usage in similar fields, despite it being what linguists would call a "false cognate" usage of the Latin root. Humans as a rule, do this quite frequently, despite the apaprent lack of "semantic precision". Does a "shell" pattern look like actual shells? The fact is that printers and printmakers employ the term quite specifically, despite their "semantic laxity", and have now for some time.

                                In any case, I'd still like to hear from a printmaker who knows what I'm talking about.

                                Jake

                                --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, uuglypher <uuglypher@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > With equal due respect, Jake, it would seem that when it is more than a bit-of -stretch to include a variety of introduced design elements as varieties of the effect of loosly characterized "reticulation" and to ignore their more salient common feature as, in fact, that of being an introduced design element, that the habit of some print makers to exercise semantic laxity in use of the term "reticulation" should not preclude use of the more functional and less limiting concept of " introduced design element" or of some other term of the same and more precise intent, which would, obviously include, rather than exclude "Tiger eye" from the rubric.
                                > While recognizing that words can change in meaning with time, it is the good fight to urge maintenance of semantic and functional precision when possible.
                                > Semantically meaningful terminology would seem to trump casually accepted obfuscating arcane argot.
                                >
                                > Just points to be considered in hope of promoting more broad comprehension of a yet-to-be settled term of art.
                                >
                                > Best regards,
                                >
                                > Dave Graham
                                >
                                > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                >
                                > On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:40 PM, "jemiljan" <jemiljan@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > > Will all due respect, Dave, while the etymology of the term you've given is correct, I think your definition is overly precise and narrow, and doesn't reflect the way that jewelers, printmakers, and even commercial printers I know generally employ it. Maybe they're wrong in your view, but they aren't referring to physical biological networks or the functionality of engineered structures at all.
                                > >
                                > > Printmakers and offset printers use the term to refer to specific effects that can occur in ink films. For offset printers, these aberrations in the ink films, ranging from grainy, cracked, pinholed, or "rumpled" effects, and they are considered undesirable. It was often the result of too much moisture during printing (I originally trained as an apprentice pressman and worked in the industry for several years). Printmakers, on the other hand, often try and achieve these affects, typically through washes.
                                > >
                                > > Specifically, I do think that there are greater and lesser and greater degrees of reticulated effects in the range of patterns suggested. It is not "all or none". The Stormont pattern achieves maximum reticulation within the spots of the last color applies - a lacy network of bubbles- while others like shell or scrotel achieve less so, but they are still analogous to the effects observed in reticulated washes. If you look at them closely with a magnifying lens, you can often observe a type of "networked" patterns formed in the pigment particles; they just aren't as obvious, pronounced and highly regimented.
                                > >
                                > > On the other hand, a tiger-eye pattern might better be left as is. The term describes the effect perfectly. I've tended to use the term "reticulated for for the effects achieved within the spots of the Stormont, gloucester, Antique, Shell and Schrotel patterns, not Tiger Eye.
                                > >
                                > > It just seems to me that if people working with color on paper are already employing a term- whether etymologically "correct" or not- is something to consider. Are there any other printmakers are on here, who would care to comment?
                                > >
                                > > Jake Benson
                                > >
                                > > --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, uuglypher <uuglypher@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > An interesting and rational idea/request!
                                > > >
                                > > > However, the suggested term "reticulation" with its derived forms based on "reticulum"( Latin; net) reticular, reticulated, reticulation is, in fact, far more precise and restrictive in meaning in the terminology of design, art, biology, medicine, and engineering than has been suggested. It specifically relates to a functional and/or physical network / net-like/ web-like mode of interrelationship or pattern and certainly does not encompass the range of perceived morphologies that anthonianthonianthoni hopes to include under a single rubric. I suggest the search for a term is, indeed, justified and valid, and that we seek or construct as a neologism a term clearly encompassing on a generic basis the variety of local, " micro-environmental" morphological alterations that we all recognize and conceptually " lump" but have, as yet, no accepted term under which that specific and rationally inclusive conceptual lumping might logically be accomplished.
                                > > >
                                > > > Dave in South Dakota
                                > > >
                                > > > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                > > > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                > > >
                                > > > On Aug 26, 2012, at 5:52 PM, "anthonianthonianthoni" <anthonianthonianthoni@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > > As you may already know, there is a family of patterns of marbled paper in which the paints are mixed with chemicals to alter the effect they give, e.g, shell , stormont, tiger eye, broken, etc.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Now, has any name been yet invented to describe this large family of patterns?. If there is no such name, what do you suggest?
                                > > > >
                                > > > > A.L
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • jemiljan
                                Anthoni, In all honesty, I think it s equally futile to use a single word to describe such patterns collectively, even if describing the method rather than the
                                Message 15 of 27 , Aug 28, 2012
                                  Anthoni, In all honesty, I think it's equally futile to use a single word to describe such patterns collectively, even if describing the method rather than the appearance. "Made with further additives" is readily understood by the general, non-marbling public.

                                  That said, you do have a point about describing the method over appearance, and terms such as "combed" do reflect this.

                                  Jake
                                  --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, "anthonianthonianthoni" <anthonianthonianthoni@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > The discussion so far upon this topic of terminology has proves rather
                                  > interesting.
                                  > After some consideration, I believe that what we should be striving towards is not a name based on the *appearance * of the pattern , but rather a description of the *method* by which the pattern is made.
                                  > Giving a name based on the *appearence* of this group of patterns is futile , as the patterns which I have mentioned look almost *nothing* like one another.
                                  > Whilst we may classify patterns like the spanish, moire, trocadero and one type of "zebra" under "spanish" , as the processes used in making them have a relativley predictable effect on the appearence of the pattern.
                                  > On the other hand, adding a chemical ( see my previous post for def.) to the paint hardly produces any consistant effect. for example, adding olive oil to paint causes it to farm a "shell" , whilst adding caustic soda to it will turn it to a "tiger eye". Even the same ingredient will have remakeably different effects at different doses. For example, turps when added to the paint in small amounts produces a "shell". add a bit more, and you get a stormont.
                                  >
                                • irisnevins
                                  Glad there is another harper (before I am corrected to Harpist, we folk hapers are harpers! Our harps are smaller too) and guitar player here! I build my own
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Aug 28, 2012
                                    Glad there is another harper (before I am corrected to Harpist, we folk hapers are harpers! Our harps are smaller too) and guitar player here! I build my own harps, and the thought of marbling one has crossed my mind!

                                    We could call them modified or altered perhaps, But again, I'll bet people carry on as is and won't take new names. I think you could mention those words when describing the pattern though. For example...someone asks WHAT IS NJ RIPPLE? I say it's a sort of altered or modified Spanish Moire, but with stripes instead of blobs! OK... I like to goof around a lot, I probably would use the very un-academic term BLOB, just in natural speech! So the pattern would be conveyed, but I seem to always end up with a laugh inserted. The more serious term I suppose is SPOT or LARGE SPOTS. Honestly, truly the first word that came to mind writing this was BLOB though, and I use it a lot in describing patterns. Having had zero "training" in marbling I don't do a lot of things "right" but they work. Experience has been my teacher for 34 years, and I have made up a lot of names for things that are not standardized. When i started you could barely even find a booklet on marbling, and there was no web or email or personal computers. Not even fax machines yet. So many of us back then winged it both in method and terminology.

                                    There have been many attempts, for decades, to standardize the nomenclature, and it never stuck much. Most patterns have recognizable names, as Susanne pointed out. I'd be for letting it evolve itself. We have the web now, and can do better by showing images to new customers. I do find since the advent of the web there is way less confusion over what a named pattern looks like. At times people too, say so and so calls it something else though. OK call it what you want, it still is what it is. I am not against standardizing names, but don't think it will stick very well, it has not before, but with the web it will evolve, people will say sometimes, it's a bouquet OR a peacock, I just ask, with combing or not? We communicate, people get what they need.

                                    Iris Nevins
                                    www.marblingpaper.com

                                    On 08/27/12, uuglypher<uuglypher@...> wrote:

                                    Interesting, Iris,
                                    I, when not marbeling, also play the lever harp, guitar, as well as hammered dulcimer, and fiddle, and, in younger days, sat in on sessuns in the Orkneys whenever I was so fortunate to return there.

                                    Thanks for your input to the discussion. Can you suggest an appropriate term...traditional or otherwise...under which to classify the materials that introduce a variety of replicable local interruptions within otherwise recognized patterns about which Anthony asks? It seems reasonable to aspire at least some regularity of terminology in the craft and art to which we hope to attract new practioners, eh?

                                    Dave Graham
                                    Estelline, SD

                                    "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                    Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

                                    "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                    Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

                                    On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:48 PM, irisnevins <irisnevins@...> wrote:

                                    > PS....Just have to add something very amusing, there is a very prolific composer (I am not sure he can even read or write music at all), named Paddy Fahey. He has composed at least 60 tunes, and he calls ALL of them "Paddy Fahey's". So does everyone else. There have been attempts to number them, and they appear on many tune sites and Irish music books (he doesn't seem to mind this at all, and has never published a book himself), but the numbering system, no one pays attention or even remembers. We just laugh when asked what the tune is and say "Paddy Fahey's". The only way we can identify it if we are wanting to start one off at a session (sort of an Irish music jam) and want the others to play with us, is to just start playing it and those that recognize it from memory will join in. We use no sheet music at these things.
                                    >
                                    > Trust me, marblers have it pretty easy when it comes to naming things!
                                    >
                                    > Iris Nevins
                                    > www.marblingpaper.com
                                    >
                                    > On 08/27/12, irisnevins<irisnevins@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > It seems almost "Traditional" at this point to have differing names! Centuries worth.
                                    >
                                    > We go through the same with Irish traditional music, people playing the same tunes but having very often different names for them. In those circles it's considered part of the fun, I think to the point where people would refuse to agree to call them something else, say if some musical academic of some sort, maybe an "ethnomusicologist", said THESE, from now on will be the "proper" names, which shall be used in the future. They'd be laughed at frankly.
                                    >
                                    > I think what has happened for centuries, is that if people didn't know the name of a pattern, they would make up a name they thought was appropriate. OR... in playing "telephone" as either the name of a pattern travelled, or again back to music the name of a tune, it would end up different. An example is an Irish tune called by some, The Sheep In The Boat, and by as many others, The Hole In The Boat...because the sheep kicked a hole in the boat and drowned everyone. A true event in Ireland in the mid 1800s I believe. Same for marbled patterns. Take Bouquet for example... it looks like a fan so I have heard it called Fan. or also called Peacock because it looks like a peacock's tail. What do they call Peacock I wonder. They may make something up.
                                    >
                                    > We have a popular Irish Session tune, which I call East Of Glendart (I play Irish harp and guitar), but it also goes by:
                                    > The Humours Of Glendart
                                    > East AT Glendart
                                    > The Bohola
                                    > Shins Around The Fireside
                                    > The Housemaid
                                    > Finlay's
                                    > Irishman's Hearth To The Ladies
                                    > Humours Of Glen
                                    > Darby Gallagher's
                                    > Tim The Piper
                                    > The Cashel
                                    >
                                    > And you think Marbling Patterns are bad! This goes on all the time in the music... and half the time people don't have any name at all. So we learn it by the sound of it, and remember it later as "Oh That", Or the "One that we play after whatever tune". Or they will name it for the person they learned it from, like the above example of Darby Gallaher's, surely he was known for playing that tune a lot and likely poor Darby had no clue what the name was. All I can say is Thank God there were no copyright enforcers around when most of this music originated, there would be so many suits over stealing the darned tune. Most learn the music by ear so never see sheet music with a title. Thus, there are also different "settings" of the same tune. Same tune, just a little different. Just like each sheet of marbling is different, most "ear taught" Irish musicians never play the same tune the same exact way twice. It's how you feel it at the moment. Same way there is a different hand to each
                                    > person's interpretation of the same pattern. Even the same person will vary it. the art pretty much dictates that you will vary it! None of us went to the Xerox School Of Marbling, as I have tried to explain to new customers for decades.
                                    >
                                    > So similarly I imagine that many marblers over many years from many countries came up with the same or similar patterns, and just made up the names if they didn't know them. I have certainly done it myself, with the NJ Ripple Pattern, and that name started as a joke and stuck. It's a combination of zebra with a moire folding and movement done to it. I really had no name, it was a combination of techniques. Someone put me on the spot at a show and asked me the name, so I said I don't know, why not call it NJ Ripple, for a laugh. Anyway, not sure about everyone else but I think this is a charming aspect to marbling, and to music, though it is potentially confusing, I find it a fun kind of confusing. Give a few tries and examples and it seems everyone knows what everyone means pattern-wise anyway most of the time, or nowadays shoot over a digital picture... and you get the same, "Oh THAT!". Maybe I am wrong, but I enjoy the differences and don't take it too seriously.
                                    >
                                    > Iris Nevins
                                    > www.marblingpaper.com
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                    ------------------------------------

                                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  • uuglypher
                                    Yep! The parallels continue. I started as a harper with a Dusty FH-26 in 1988 ( also when I started marbling) and then built a Paraguayan split-neck style 36
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Aug 28, 2012
                                      Yep! The parallels continue. I started as a harper with a Dusty FH-26 in 1988 ( also when I started marbling) and then built a Paraguayan split-neck style 36 stringer. Are you a member of Harplist?
                                      I easily relate to your comments on terminology. I also thought the idea of having a term to cover those alterations of established patterns with superimposed design elements...as opposed to techniques involving creasing and other "lay down" effects...would be useful.

                                      Best regards,
                                      Dave in Estelline, SD


                                      "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                      Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

                                      On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:14 AM, irisnevins <irisnevins@...> wrote:

                                      > Glad there is another harper (before I am corrected to Harpist, we folk hapers are harpers! Our harps are smaller too) and guitar player here! I build my own harps, and the thought of marbling one has crossed my mind!
                                      >
                                      > We could call them modified or altered perhaps, But again, I'll bet people carry on as is and won't take new names. I think you could mention those words when describing the pattern though. For example...someone asks WHAT IS NJ RIPPLE? I say it's a sort of altered or modified Spanish Moire, but with stripes instead of blobs! OK... I like to goof around a lot, I probably would use the very un-academic term BLOB, just in natural speech! So the pattern would be conveyed, but I seem to always end up with a laugh inserted. The more serious term I suppose is SPOT or LARGE SPOTS. Honestly, truly the first word that came to mind writing this was BLOB though, and I use it a lot in describing patterns. Having had zero "training" in marbling I don't do a lot of things "right" but they work. Experience has been my teacher for 34 years, and I have made up a lot of names for things that are not standardized. When i started you could barely even find a booklet on marbling, and there was no web or email or personal computers. Not even fax machines yet. So many of us back then winged it both in method and terminology.
                                      >
                                      > There have been many attempts, for decades, to standardize the nomenclature, and it never stuck much. Most patterns have recognizable names, as Susanne pointed out. I'd be for letting it evolve itself. We have the web now, and can do better by showing images to new customers. I do find since the advent of the web there is way less confusion over what a named pattern looks like. At times people too, say so and so calls it something else though. OK call it what you want, it still is what it is. I am not against standardizing names, but don't think it will stick very well, it has not before, but with the web it will evolve, people will say sometimes, it's a bouquet OR a peacock, I just ask, with combing or not? We communicate, people get what they need.
                                      >
                                      > Iris Nevins
                                      > www.marblingpaper.com
                                      >
                                      > On 08/27/12, uuglypher<uuglypher@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Interesting, Iris,
                                      > I, when not marbeling, also play the lever harp, guitar, as well as hammered dulcimer, and fiddle, and, in younger days, sat in on sessuns in the Orkneys whenever I was so fortunate to return there.
                                      >
                                      > Thanks for your input to the discussion. Can you suggest an appropriate term...traditional or otherwise...under which to classify the materials that introduce a variety of replicable local interruptions within otherwise recognized patterns about which Anthony asks? It seems reasonable to aspire at least some regularity of terminology in the craft and art to which we hope to attract new practioners, eh?
                                      >
                                      > Dave Graham
                                      > Estelline, SD
                                      >
                                      > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                      > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                      >
                                      > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                      > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                      >
                                      > On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:48 PM, irisnevins <irisnevins@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > PS....Just have to add something very amusing, there is a very prolific composer (I am not sure he can even read or write music at all), named Paddy Fahey. He has composed at least 60 tunes, and he calls ALL of them "Paddy Fahey's". So does everyone else. There have been attempts to number them, and they appear on many tune sites and Irish music books (he doesn't seem to mind this at all, and has never published a book himself), but the numbering system, no one pays attention or even remembers. We just laugh when asked what the tune is and say "Paddy Fahey's". The only way we can identify it if we are wanting to start one off at a session (sort of an Irish music jam) and want the others to play with us, is to just start playing it and those that recognize it from memory will join in. We use no sheet music at these things.
                                      > >
                                      > > Trust me, marblers have it pretty easy when it comes to naming things!
                                      > >
                                      > > Iris Nevins
                                      > > www.marblingpaper.com
                                      > >
                                      > > On 08/27/12, irisnevins<irisnevins@...> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > It seems almost "Traditional" at this point to have differing names! Centuries worth.
                                      > >
                                      > > We go through the same with Irish traditional music, people playing the same tunes but having very often different names for them. In those circles it's considered part of the fun, I think to the point where people would refuse to agree to call them something else, say if some musical academic of some sort, maybe an "ethnomusicologist", said THESE, from now on will be the "proper" names, which shall be used in the future. They'd be laughed at frankly.
                                      > >
                                      > > I think what has happened for centuries, is that if people didn't know the name of a pattern, they would make up a name they thought was appropriate. OR... in playing "telephone" as either the name of a pattern travelled, or again back to music the name of a tune, it would end up different. An example is an Irish tune called by some, The Sheep In The Boat, and by as many others, The Hole In The Boat...because the sheep kicked a hole in the boat and drowned everyone. A true event in Ireland in the mid 1800s I believe. Same for marbled patterns. Take Bouquet for example... it looks like a fan so I have heard it called Fan. or also called Peacock because it looks like a peacock's tail. What do they call Peacock I wonder. They may make something up.
                                      > >
                                      > > We have a popular Irish Session tune, which I call East Of Glendart (I play Irish harp and guitar), but it also goes by:
                                      > > The Humours Of Glendart
                                      > > East AT Glendart
                                      > > The Bohola
                                      > > Shins Around The Fireside
                                      > > The Housemaid
                                      > > Finlay's
                                      > > Irishman's Hearth To The Ladies
                                      > > Humours Of Glen
                                      > > Darby Gallagher's
                                      > > Tim The Piper
                                      > > The Cashel
                                      > >
                                      > > And you think Marbling Patterns are bad! This goes on all the time in the music... and half the time people don't have any name at all. So we learn it by the sound of it, and remember it later as "Oh That", Or the "One that we play after whatever tune". Or they will name it for the person they learned it from, like the above example of Darby Gallaher's, surely he was known for playing that tune a lot and likely poor Darby had no clue what the name was. All I can say is Thank God there were no copyright enforcers around when most of this music originated, there would be so many suits over stealing the darned tune. Most learn the music by ear so never see sheet music with a title. Thus, there are also different "settings" of the same tune. Same tune, just a little different. Just like each sheet of marbling is different, most "ear taught" Irish musicians never play the same tune the same exact way twice. It's how you feel it at the moment. Same way there is a different hand to each
                                      > > person's interpretation of the same pattern. Even the same person will vary it. the art pretty much dictates that you will vary it! None of us went to the Xerox School Of Marbling, as I have tried to explain to new customers for decades.
                                      > >
                                      > > So similarly I imagine that many marblers over many years from many countries came up with the same or similar patterns, and just made up the names if they didn't know them. I have certainly done it myself, with the NJ Ripple Pattern, and that name started as a joke and stuck. It's a combination of zebra with a moire folding and movement done to it. I really had no name, it was a combination of techniques. Someone put me on the spot at a show and asked me the name, so I said I don't know, why not call it NJ Ripple, for a laugh. Anyway, not sure about everyone else but I think this is a charming aspect to marbling, and to music, though it is potentially confusing, I find it a fun kind of confusing. Give a few tries and examples and it seems everyone knows what everyone means pattern-wise anyway most of the time, or nowadays shoot over a digital picture... and you get the same, "Oh THAT!". Maybe I am wrong, but I enjoy the differences and don't take it too seriously.
                                      > >
                                      > > Iris Nevins
                                      > > www.marblingpaper.com
                                      > >
                                      > > ------------------------------------
                                      > >
                                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      > ------------------------------------
                                      >
                                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      >
                                      >


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • anthonianthonianthoni
                                      Perhaps you should call this group [chemicaly] enhanced patterns . I don t think that calling them simply enhanced patterns is good, as it suggests that you
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Aug 28, 2012
                                        Perhaps you should call this group "[chemicaly] enhanced patterns". I don't think that calling them simply "enhanced" patterns is good, as it suggests that you cannot nake a proper marbled paper without adding oil, soda or potash to it....
                                        But that said, "chemicaly enhanced pattern" does not really roll off the tounge- any other suggestions? ( P'haps [heaven forbid!] a Latin or greek word?)
                                      • kathryn fanelli
                                        And it keeps going on Dave! I too am a harper...I play a 36 string Sligo and love it. It s remarkable to learn there are so many marblers that play folk
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Aug 28, 2012
                                          And it keeps going on Dave! I too am a harper...I play a 36 string Sligo and love it. It's remarkable to learn there are so many marblers that play folk harp...interesting correlation.
                                           
                                          Kathryn 





                                          ________________________________
                                          From: uuglypher <uuglypher@...>
                                          To: "Marbling@yahoogroups.com" <Marbling@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:42 AM
                                          Subject: Re: [Marbling] Re: Terminology


                                           
                                          Yep! The parallels continue. I started as a harper with a Dusty FH-26 in 1988 ( also when I started marbling) and then built a Paraguayan split-neck style 36 stringer. Are you a member of Harplist?
                                          I easily relate to your comments on terminology. I also thought the idea of having a term to cover those alterations of established patterns with superimposed design elements...as opposed to techniques involving creasing and other "lay down" effects...would be useful.

                                          Best regards,
                                          Dave in Estelline, SD

                                          "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                          Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

                                          On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:14 AM, irisnevins <irisnevins@...> wrote:

                                          > Glad there is another harper (before I am corrected to Harpist, we folk hapers are harpers! Our harps are smaller too) and guitar player here! I build my own harps, and the thought of marbling one has crossed my mind!
                                          >
                                          > We could call them modified or altered perhaps, But again, I'll bet people carry on as is and won't take new names. I think you could mention those words when describing the pattern though. For example...someone asks WHAT IS NJ RIPPLE? I say it's a sort of altered or modified Spanish Moire, but with stripes instead of blobs! OK... I like to goof around a lot, I probably would use the very un-academic term BLOB, just in natural speech! So the pattern would be conveyed, but I seem to always end up with a laugh inserted. The more serious term I suppose is SPOT or LARGE SPOTS. Honestly, truly the first word that came to mind writing this was BLOB though, and I use it a lot in describing patterns. Having had zero "training" in marbling I don't do a lot of things "right" but they work. Experience has been my teacher for 34 years, and I have made up a lot of names for things that are not standardized. When i started you could barely even find a booklet on
                                          marbling, and there was no web or email or personal computers. Not even fax machines yet. So many of us back then winged it both in method and terminology.
                                          >
                                          > There have been many attempts, for decades, to standardize the nomenclature, and it never stuck much. Most patterns have recognizable names, as Susanne pointed out. I'd be for letting it evolve itself. We have the web now, and can do better by showing images to new customers. I do find since the advent of the web there is way less confusion over what a named pattern looks like. At times people too, say so and so calls it something else though. OK call it what you want, it still is what it is. I am not against standardizing names, but don't think it will stick very well, it has not before, but with the web it will evolve, people will say sometimes, it's a bouquet OR a peacock, I just ask, with combing or not? We communicate, people get what they need.
                                          >
                                          > Iris Nevins
                                          > www.marblingpaper.com
                                          >
                                          > On 08/27/12, uuglypher<uuglypher@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Interesting, Iris,
                                          > I, when not marbeling, also play the lever harp, guitar, as well as hammered dulcimer, and fiddle, and, in younger days, sat in on sessuns in the Orkneys whenever I was so fortunate to return there.
                                          >
                                          > Thanks for your input to the discussion. Can you suggest an appropriate term...traditional or otherwise...under which to classify the materials that introduce a variety of replicable local interruptions within otherwise recognized patterns about which Anthony asks? It seems reasonable to aspire at least some regularity of terminology in the craft and art to which we hope to attract new practioners, eh?
                                          >
                                          > Dave Graham
                                          > Estelline, SD
                                          >
                                          > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                          > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                          >
                                          > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                          > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                          >
                                          > On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:48 PM, irisnevins <irisnevins@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > PS....Just have to add something very amusing, there is a very prolific composer (I am not sure he can even read or write music at all), named Paddy Fahey. He has composed at least 60 tunes, and he calls ALL of them "Paddy Fahey's". So does everyone else. There have been attempts to number them, and they appear on many tune sites and Irish music books (he doesn't seem to mind this at all, and has never published a book himself), but the numbering system, no one pays attention or even remembers. We just laugh when asked what the tune is and say "Paddy Fahey's". The only way we can identify it if we are wanting to start one off at a session (sort of an Irish music jam) and want the others to play with us, is to just start playing it and those that recognize it from memory will join in. We use no sheet music at these things.
                                          > >
                                          > > Trust me, marblers have it pretty easy when it comes to naming things!
                                          > >
                                          > > Iris Nevins
                                          > > www.marblingpaper.com
                                          > >
                                          > > On 08/27/12, irisnevins<irisnevins@...> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > It seems almost "Traditional" at this point to have differing names! Centuries worth.
                                          > >
                                          > > We go through the same with Irish traditional music, people playing the same tunes but having very often different names for them. In those circles it's considered part of the fun, I think to the point where people would refuse to agree to call them something else, say if some musical academic of some sort, maybe an "ethnomusicologist", said THESE, from now on will be the "proper" names, which shall be used in the future. They'd be laughed at frankly.
                                          > >
                                          > > I think what has happened for centuries, is that if people didn't know the name of a pattern, they would make up a name they thought was appropriate. OR... in playing "telephone" as either the name of a pattern travelled, or again back to music the name of a tune, it would end up different. An example is an Irish tune called by some, The Sheep In The Boat, and by as many others, The Hole In The Boat...because the sheep kicked a hole in the boat and drowned everyone. A true event in Ireland in the mid 1800s I believe. Same for marbled patterns. Take Bouquet for example... it looks like a fan so I have heard it called Fan. or also called Peacock because it looks like a peacock's tail. What do they call Peacock I wonder. They may make something up.
                                          > >
                                          > > We have a popular Irish Session tune, which I call East Of Glendart (I play Irish harp and guitar), but it also goes by:
                                          > > The Humours Of Glendart
                                          > > East AT Glendart
                                          > > The Bohola
                                          > > Shins Around The Fireside
                                          > > The Housemaid
                                          > > Finlay's
                                          > > Irishman's Hearth To The Ladies
                                          > > Humours Of Glen
                                          > > Darby Gallagher's
                                          > > Tim The Piper
                                          > > The Cashel
                                          > >
                                          > > And you think Marbling Patterns are bad! This goes on all the time in the music... and half the time people don't have any name at all. So we learn it by the sound of it, and remember it later as "Oh That", Or the "One that we play after whatever tune". Or they will name it for the person they learned it from, like the above example of Darby Gallaher's, surely he was known for playing that tune a lot and likely poor Darby had no clue what the name was. All I can say is Thank God there were no copyright enforcers around when most of this music originated, there would be so many suits over stealing the darned tune. Most learn the music by ear so never see sheet music with a title. Thus, there are also different "settings" of the same tune. Same tune, just a little different. Just like each sheet of marbling is different, most "ear taught" Irish musicians never play the same tune the same exact way twice. It's how you feel it at the moment. Same way
                                          there is a different hand to each
                                          > > person's interpretation of the same pattern. Even the same person will vary it. the art pretty much dictates that you will vary it! None of us went to the Xerox School Of Marbling, as I have tried to explain to new customers for decades.
                                          > >
                                          > > So similarly I imagine that many marblers over many years from many countries came up with the same or similar patterns, and just made up the names if they didn't know them. I have certainly done it myself, with the NJ Ripple Pattern, and that name started as a joke and stuck. It's a combination of zebra with a moire folding and movement done to it. I really had no name, it was a combination of techniques. Someone put me on the spot at a show and asked me the name, so I said I don't know, why not call it NJ Ripple, for a laugh. Anyway, not sure about everyone else but I think this is a charming aspect to marbling, and to music, though it is potentially confusing, I find it a fun kind of confusing. Give a few tries and examples and it seems everyone knows what everyone means pattern-wise anyway most of the time, or nowadays shoot over a digital picture... and you get the same, "Oh THAT!". Maybe I am wrong, but I enjoy the differences and don't take it
                                          too seriously.
                                          > >
                                          > > Iris Nevins
                                          > > www.marblingpaper.com
                                          > >
                                          > > ------------------------------------
                                          > >
                                          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                          > ------------------------------------
                                          >
                                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          >
                                          >

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • uuglypher
                                          Jake...or do you prefer Benson ? You are certainly correct that false cognates of otherwise more precise terms do sometimes come into accepted use in spite
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Aug 28, 2012
                                            Jake...or do you prefer "Benson"?

                                            You are certainly correct that " false cognates" of otherwise more precise terms do sometimes come into accepted use in spite of their flights-in-the-face of precise meaning. Do you mean to hold that when the need for a new term is rationally expressed and a new term is sought, we should pointedly seek it among the extant semantically erroneous lexicon? I merely suggest that we would better, in the case of a newly expressed need, choose a term of more specific and precise meaning. To do otherwise would seem to merely patronize the artistic rustics of the past, rather than attempt to use language for its intended purpose, that being to clearly convey intent and meaning.

                                            It was Quintillian, the Iberian rhetorician and Roman Citizen of the Second Century AD, who held that we should speak not merely in a manner as to be capable of being understood. Rather, we ought speak in a manner that we be incapable of being misunderstood. His sentiment seems particularly applicable to the present discussion.

                                            I wonder if there perhaps be Turkish, Arabic, or Farsi words that might more appropriately meet the need Anthony has noted. Indeed, the precise term may already exist in more than one language! I see no reason to limit the linguistic palatte of our craft and art to English cognates of Greek, of Latin, or of other Indo-European lexica.

                                            Best regards,
                                            Dave

                                            "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                            Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

                                            On Aug 28, 2012, at 4:00 AM, "jemiljan" <jemiljan@...> wrote:

                                            > Graham,
                                            >
                                            > The use of reticulation was an attempt to describe visual appearance based on current usage in similar fields, despite it being what linguists would call a "false cognate" usage of the Latin root. Humans as a rule, do this quite frequently, despite the apaprent lack of "semantic precision". Does a "shell" pattern look like actual shells? The fact is that printers and printmakers employ the term quite specifically, despite their "semantic laxity", and have now for some time.
                                            >
                                            > In any case, I'd still like to hear from a printmaker who knows what I'm talking about.
                                            >
                                            > Jake
                                            >
                                            > --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, uuglypher <uuglypher@...> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > With equal due respect, Jake, it would seem that when it is more than a bit-of -stretch to include a variety of introduced design elements as varieties of the effect of loosly characterized "reticulation" and to ignore their more salient common feature as, in fact, that of being an introduced design element, that the habit of some print makers to exercise semantic laxity in use of the term "reticulation" should not preclude use of the more functional and less limiting concept of " introduced design element" or of some other term of the same and more precise intent, which would, obviously include, rather than exclude "Tiger eye" from the rubric.
                                            > > While recognizing that words can change in meaning with time, it is the good fight to urge maintenance of semantic and functional precision when possible.
                                            > > Semantically meaningful terminology would seem to trump casually accepted obfuscating arcane argot.
                                            > >
                                            > > Just points to be considered in hope of promoting more broad comprehension of a yet-to-be settled term of art.
                                            > >
                                            > > Best regards,
                                            > >
                                            > > Dave Graham
                                            > >
                                            > > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                            > > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                            > >
                                            > > On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:40 PM, "jemiljan" <jemiljan@...> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > > Will all due respect, Dave, while the etymology of the term you've given is correct, I think your definition is overly precise and narrow, and doesn't reflect the way that jewelers, printmakers, and even commercial printers I know generally employ it. Maybe they're wrong in your view, but they aren't referring to physical biological networks or the functionality of engineered structures at all.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Printmakers and offset printers use the term to refer to specific effects that can occur in ink films. For offset printers, these aberrations in the ink films, ranging from grainy, cracked, pinholed, or "rumpled" effects, and they are considered undesirable. It was often the result of too much moisture during printing (I originally trained as an apprentice pressman and worked in the industry for several years). Printmakers, on the other hand, often try and achieve these affects, typically through washes.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Specifically, I do think that there are greater and lesser and greater degrees of reticulated effects in the range of patterns suggested. It is not "all or none". The Stormont pattern achieves maximum reticulation within the spots of the last color applies - a lacy network of bubbles- while others like shell or scrotel achieve less so, but they are still analogous to the effects observed in reticulated washes. If you look at them closely with a magnifying lens, you can often observe a type of "networked" patterns formed in the pigment particles; they just aren't as obvious, pronounced and highly regimented.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > On the other hand, a tiger-eye pattern might better be left as is. The term describes the effect perfectly. I've tended to use the term "reticulated for for the effects achieved within the spots of the Stormont, gloucester, Antique, Shell and Schrotel patterns, not Tiger Eye.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > It just seems to me that if people working with color on paper are already employing a term- whether etymologically "correct" or not- is something to consider. Are there any other printmakers are on here, who would care to comment?
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Jake Benson
                                            > > >
                                            > > > --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, uuglypher <uuglypher@> wrote:
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > An interesting and rational idea/request!
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > However, the suggested term "reticulation" with its derived forms based on "reticulum"( Latin; net) reticular, reticulated, reticulation is, in fact, far more precise and restrictive in meaning in the terminology of design, art, biology, medicine, and engineering than has been suggested. It specifically relates to a functional and/or physical network / net-like/ web-like mode of interrelationship or pattern and certainly does not encompass the range of perceived morphologies that anthonianthonianthoni hopes to include under a single rubric. I suggest the search for a term is, indeed, justified and valid, and that we seek or construct as a neologism a term clearly encompassing on a generic basis the variety of local, " micro-environmental" morphological alterations that we all recognize and conceptually " lump" but have, as yet, no accepted term under which that specific and rationally inclusive conceptual lumping might logically be accomplished.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > Dave in South Dakota
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                            > > > > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > On Aug 26, 2012, at 5:52 PM, "anthonianthonianthoni" <anthonianthonianthoni@> wrote:
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > > As you may already know, there is a family of patterns of marbled paper in which the paints are mixed with chemicals to alter the effect they give, e.g, shell , stormont, tiger eye, broken, etc.
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > Now, has any name been yet invented to describe this large family of patterns?. If there is no such name, what do you suggest?
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > A.L
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            > > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            >


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • irisnevins
                                            Hi Dave, I am on harplist and virtual harp circle, and wire strung harp! I have built...not sure how many at this point, and started to build for or with my
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Aug 28, 2012
                                              Hi Dave, I am on harplist and virtual harp circle, and wire strung harp!
                                              I have built...not sure how many at this point, and started to build for or with my harp students. I also pick up and overhaul used harps and sell them. some I keep as rental harps too though. My name on those groups is idn17 if you look me up! I just put out a new CD, (the prior was guitar tunes) called String Theory that has nylon and wire harps and guitar!

                                              So have you marbled a harp yet? LOL!
                                              Iris Nevins
                                              www.marblingpaper.com



                                              On 08/28/12, uuglypher<uuglypher@...> wrote:

                                              Yep! The parallels continue. I started as a harper with a Dusty FH-26 in 1988 ( also when I started marbling) and then built a Paraguayan split-neck style 36 stringer. Are you a member of Harplist?
                                              I easily relate to your comments on terminology. I also thought the idea of having a term to cover those alterations of established patterns with superimposed design elements...as opposed to techniques involving creasing and other "lay down" effects...would be useful.

                                              Best regards,
                                              Dave in Estelline, SD


                                              "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                              Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

                                              On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:14 AM, irisnevins <irisnevins@...> wrote:

                                              > Glad there is another harper (before I am corrected to Harpist, we folk hapers are harpers! Our harps are smaller too) and guitar player here! I build my own harps, and the thought of marbling one has crossed my mind!
                                              >
                                              > We could call them modified or altered perhaps, But again, I'll bet people carry on as is and won't take new names. I think you could mention those words when describing the pattern though. For example...someone asks WHAT IS NJ RIPPLE? I say it's a sort of altered or modified Spanish Moire, but with stripes instead of blobs! OK... I like to goof around a lot, I probably would use the very un-academic term BLOB, just in natural speech! So the pattern would be conveyed, but I seem to always end up with a laugh inserted. The more serious term I suppose is SPOT or LARGE SPOTS. Honestly, truly the first word that came to mind writing this was BLOB though, and I use it a lot in describing patterns. Having had zero "training" in marbling I don't do a lot of things "right" but they work. Experience has been my teacher for 34 years, and I have made up a lot of names for things that are not standardized. When i started you could barely even find a booklet on marbling, and there was no web or
                                              email or personal computers. Not even fax machines yet. So many of us back then winged it both in method and terminology.
                                              >
                                              > There have been many attempts, for decades, to standardize the nomenclature, and it never stuck much. Most patterns have recognizable names, as Susanne pointed out. I'd be for letting it evolve itself. We have the web now, and can do better by showing images to new customers. I do find since the advent of the web there is way less confusion over what a named pattern looks like. At times people too, say so and so calls it something else though. OK call it what you want, it still is what it is. I am not against standardizing names, but don't think it will stick very well, it has not before, but with the web it will evolve, people will say sometimes, it's a bouquet OR a peacock, I just ask, with combing or not? We communicate, people get what they need.
                                              >
                                              > Iris Nevins
                                              > www.marblingpaper.com
                                              >
                                              > On 08/27/12, uuglypher<uuglypher@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Interesting, Iris,
                                              > I, when not marbeling, also play the lever harp, guitar, as well as hammered dulcimer, and fiddle, and, in younger days, sat in on sessuns in the Orkneys whenever I was so fortunate to return there.
                                              >
                                              > Thanks for your input to the discussion. Can you suggest an appropriate term...traditional or otherwise...under which to classify the materials that introduce a variety of replicable local interruptions within otherwise recognized patterns about which Anthony asks? It seems reasonable to aspire at least some regularity of terminology in the craft and art to which we hope to attract new practioners, eh?
                                              >
                                              > Dave Graham
                                              > Estelline, SD
                                              >
                                              > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                              > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                              >
                                              > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                              > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                              >
                                              > On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:48 PM, irisnevins <irisnevins@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > PS....Just have to add something very amusing, there is a very prolific composer (I am not sure he can even read or write music at all), named Paddy Fahey. He has composed at least 60 tunes, and he calls ALL of them "Paddy Fahey's". So does everyone else. There have been attempts to number them, and they appear on many tune sites and Irish music books (he doesn't seem to mind this at all, and has never published a book himself), but the numbering system, no one pays attention or even remembers. We just laugh when asked what the tune is and say "Paddy Fahey's". The only way we can identify it if we are wanting to start one off at a session (sort of an Irish music jam) and want the others to play with us, is to just start playing it and those that recognize it from memory will join in. We use no sheet music at these things.
                                              > >
                                              > > Trust me, marblers have it pretty easy when it comes to naming things!
                                              > >
                                              > > Iris Nevins
                                              > > www.marblingpaper.com
                                              > >
                                              > > On 08/27/12, irisnevins<irisnevins@...> wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > It seems almost "Traditional" at this point to have differing names! Centuries worth.
                                              > >
                                              > > We go through the same with Irish traditional music, people playing the same tunes but having very often different names for them. In those circles it's considered part of the fun, I think to the point where people would refuse to agree to call them something else, say if some musical academic of some sort, maybe an "ethnomusicologist", said THESE, from now on will be the "proper" names, which shall be used in the future. They'd be laughed at frankly.
                                              > >
                                              > > I think what has happened for centuries, is that if people didn't know the name of a pattern, they would make up a name they thought was appropriate. OR... in playing "telephone" as either the name of a pattern travelled, or again back to music the name of a tune, it would end up different. An example is an Irish tune called by some, The Sheep In The Boat, and by as many others, The Hole In The Boat...because the sheep kicked a hole in the boat and drowned everyone. A true event in Ireland in the mid 1800s I believe. Same for marbled patterns. Take Bouquet for example... it looks like a fan so I have heard it called Fan. or also called Peacock because it looks like a peacock's tail. What do they call Peacock I wonder. They may make something up.
                                              > >
                                              > > We have a popular Irish Session tune, which I call East Of Glendart (I play Irish harp and guitar), but it also goes by:
                                              > > The Humours Of Glendart
                                              > > East AT Glendart
                                              > > The Bohola
                                              > > Shins Around The Fireside
                                              > > The Housemaid
                                              > > Finlay's
                                              > > Irishman's Hearth To The Ladies
                                              > > Humours Of Glen
                                              > > Darby Gallagher's
                                              > > Tim The Piper
                                              > > The Cashel
                                              > >
                                              > > And you think Marbling Patterns are bad! This goes on all the time in the music... and half the time people don't have any name at all. So we learn it by the sound of it, and remember it later as "Oh That", Or the "One that we play after whatever tune". Or they will name it for the person they learned it from, like the above example of Darby Gallaher's, surely he was known for playing that tune a lot and likely poor Darby had no clue what the name was. All I can say is Thank God there were no copyright enforcers around when most of this music originated, there would be so many suits over stealing the darned tune. Most learn the music by ear so never see sheet music with a title. Thus, there are also different "settings" of the same tune. Same tune, just a little different. Just like each sheet of marbling is different, most "ear taught" Irish musicians never play the same tune the same exact way twice. It's how you feel it at the moment. Same way there is a different hand to each
                                              > > person's interpretation of the same pattern. Even the same person will vary it. the art pretty much dictates that you will vary it! None of us went to the Xerox School Of Marbling, as I have tried to explain to new customers for decades.
                                              > >
                                              > > So similarly I imagine that many marblers over many years from many countries came up with the same or similar patterns, and just made up the names if they didn't know them. I have certainly done it myself, with the NJ Ripple Pattern, and that name started as a joke and stuck. It's a combination of zebra with a moire folding and movement done to it. I really had no name, it was a combination of techniques. Someone put me on the spot at a show and asked me the name, so I said I don't know, why not call it NJ Ripple, for a laugh. Anyway, not sure about everyone else but I think this is a charming aspect to marbling, and to music, though it is potentially confusing, I find it a fun kind of confusing. Give a few tries and examples and it seems everyone knows what everyone means pattern-wise anyway most of the time, or nowadays shoot over a digital picture... and you get the same, "Oh THAT!". Maybe I am wrong, but I enjoy the differences and don't take it too seriously.
                                              > >
                                              > > Iris Nevins
                                              > > www.marblingpaper.com
                                              > >
                                              > > ------------------------------------
                                              > >
                                              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              > ------------------------------------
                                              >
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              >


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                              ------------------------------------

                                              Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            • irisnevins
                                              Oh My!! I do know your name I think from some of the (or one) harp groups? Do you have the Sligo Raven? Or Compact? I built the Luchair with Rick in exchange
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Aug 28, 2012
                                                Oh My!! I do know your name I think from some of the (or one) harp groups?

                                                Do you have the Sligo Raven? Or Compact? I built the Luchair with Rick in exchange for me showing how to etch silver or brass logo plates for the harps. I don't think he has time really to do it much. I made him a small batch a few years back, maybe your harp has one that says Sligo Harps...in brass?

                                                If you live in or around MD, or with any luck in NJ, or even PA, drop me a private email....lest we start boring the marblers! I am in NJ. I am putting on a super concert coming up in Oct. with Patrick Ball!

                                                Iris Nevins
                                                www.marblingpaper.com


                                                On 08/28/12, kathryn fanelli<kathrynfanelli@...> wrote:

                                                And it keeps going on Dave! I too am a harper...I play a 36 string Sligo and love it. It's remarkable to learn there are so many marblers that play folk harp...interesting correlation.

                                                Kathryn�





                                                ________________________________
                                                From: uuglypher <uuglypher@...>
                                                To: "Marbling@yahoogroups.com" <Marbling@yahoogroups.com>
                                                Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 11:42 AM
                                                Subject: Re: [Marbling] Re: Terminology



                                                Yep! The parallels continue. I started as a harper with a Dusty FH-26 in 1988 ( also when I started marbling) and then built a Paraguayan split-neck style 36 stringer. Are you a member of Harplist?
                                                I easily relate to your comments on terminology. I also thought the idea of having a term to cover those alterations of established patterns with superimposed design elements...as opposed to techniques involving creasing and other "lay down" effects...would be useful.

                                                Best regards,
                                                Dave in Estelline, SD

                                                "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                                Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"

                                                On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:14 AM, irisnevins <irisnevins@...> wrote:

                                                > Glad there is another harper (before I am corrected to Harpist, we folk hapers are harpers! Our harps are smaller too) and guitar player here! I build my own harps, and the thought of marbling one has crossed my mind!
                                                >
                                                > We could call them modified or altered perhaps, But again, I'll bet people carry on as is and won't take new names. I think you could mention those words when describing the pattern though. For example...someone asks WHAT IS NJ RIPPLE? I say it's a sort of altered or modified Spanish Moire, but with stripes instead of blobs! OK... I like to goof around a lot, I probably would use the very un-academic term BLOB, just in natural speech! So the pattern would be conveyed, but I seem to always end up with a laugh inserted. The more serious term I suppose is SPOT or LARGE SPOTS. Honestly, truly the first word that came to mind writing this was BLOB though, and I use it a lot in describing patterns. Having had zero "training" in marbling I don't do a lot of things "right" but they work. Experience has been my teacher for 34 years, and I have made up a lot of names for things that are not standardized. When i started you could barely even find a booklet on
                                                marbling, and there was no web or email or personal computers. Not even fax machines yet. So many of us back then winged it both in method and terminology.
                                                >
                                                > There have been many attempts, for decades, to standardize the nomenclature, and it never stuck much. Most patterns have recognizable names, as Susanne pointed out. I'd be for letting it evolve itself. We have the web now, and can do better by showing images to new customers. I do find since the advent of the web there is way less confusion over what a named pattern looks like. At times people too, say so and so calls it something else though. OK call it what you want, it still is what it is. I am not against standardizing names, but don't think it will stick very well, it has not before, but with the web it will evolve, people will say sometimes, it's a bouquet OR a peacock, I just ask, with combing or not? We communicate, people get what they need.
                                                >
                                                > Iris Nevins
                                                > www.marblingpaper.com
                                                >
                                                > On 08/27/12, uuglypher<uuglypher@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Interesting, Iris,
                                                > I, when not marbeling, also play the lever harp, guitar, as well as hammered dulcimer, and fiddle, and, in younger days, sat in on sessuns in the Orkneys whenever I was so fortunate to return there.
                                                >
                                                > Thanks for your input to the discussion. Can you suggest an appropriate term...traditional or otherwise...under which to classify the materials that introduce a variety of replicable local interruptions within otherwise recognized patterns about which Anthony asks? It seems reasonable to aspire at least some regularity of terminology in the craft and art to which we hope to attract new practioners, eh?
                                                >
                                                > Dave Graham
                                                > Estelline, SD
                                                >
                                                > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                                > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                                >
                                                > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                                > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                                >
                                                > On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:48 PM, irisnevins <irisnevins@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > PS....Just have to add something very amusing, there is a very prolific composer (I am not sure he can even read or write music at all), named Paddy Fahey. He has composed at least 60 tunes, and he calls ALL of them "Paddy Fahey's". So does everyone else. There have been attempts to number them, and they appear on many tune sites and Irish music books (he doesn't seem to mind this at all, and has never published a book himself), but the numbering system, no one pays attention or even remembers. We just laugh when asked what the tune is and say "Paddy Fahey's". The only way we can identify it if we are wanting to start one off at a session (sort of an Irish music jam) and want the others to play with us, is to just start playing it and those that recognize it from memory will join in. We use no sheet music at these things.
                                                > >
                                                > > Trust me, marblers have it pretty easy when it comes to naming things!
                                                > >
                                                > > Iris Nevins
                                                > > www.marblingpaper.com
                                                > >
                                                > > On 08/27/12, irisnevins<irisnevins@...> wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > > It seems almost "Traditional" at this point to have differing names! Centuries worth.
                                                > >
                                                > > We go through the same with Irish traditional music, people playing the same tunes but having very often different names for them. In those circles it's considered part of the fun, I think to the point where people would refuse to agree to call them something else, say if some musical academic of some sort, maybe an "ethnomusicologist", said THESE, from now on will be the "proper" names, which shall be used in the future. They'd be laughed at frankly.
                                                > >
                                                > > I think what has happened for centuries, is that if people didn't know the name of a pattern, they would make up a name they thought was appropriate. OR... in playing "telephone" as either the name of a pattern travelled, or again back to music the name of a tune, it would end up different. An example is an Irish tune called by some, The Sheep In The Boat, and by as many others, The Hole In The Boat...because the sheep kicked a hole in the boat and drowned everyone. A true event in Ireland in the mid 1800s I believe. Same for marbled patterns. Take Bouquet for example... it looks like a fan so I have heard it called Fan. or also called Peacock because it looks like a peacock's tail. What do they call Peacock I wonder. They may make something up.
                                                > >
                                                > > We have a popular Irish Session tune, which I call East Of Glendart (I play Irish harp and guitar), but it also goes by:
                                                > > The Humours Of Glendart
                                                > > East AT Glendart
                                                > > The Bohola
                                                > > Shins Around The Fireside
                                                > > The Housemaid
                                                > > Finlay's
                                                > > Irishman's Hearth To The Ladies
                                                > > Humours Of Glen
                                                > > Darby Gallagher's
                                                > > Tim The Piper
                                                > > The Cashel
                                                > >
                                                > > And you think Marbling Patterns are bad! This goes on all the time in the music... and half the time people don't have any name at all. So we learn it by the sound of it, and remember it later as "Oh That", Or the "One that we play after whatever tune". Or they will name it for the person they learned it from, like the above example of Darby Gallaher's, surely he was known for playing that tune a lot and likely poor Darby had no clue what the name was. All I can say is Thank God there were no copyright enforcers around when most of this music originated, there would be so many suits over stealing the darned tune. Most learn the music by ear so never see sheet music with a title. Thus, there are also different "settings" of the same tune. Same tune, just a little different. Just like each sheet of marbling is different, most "ear taught" Irish musicians never play the same tune the same exact way twice. It's how you feel it at the moment. Same way
                                                there is a different hand to each
                                                > > person's interpretation of the same pattern. Even the same person will vary it. the art pretty much dictates that you will vary it! None of us went to the Xerox School Of Marbling, as I have tried to explain to new customers for decades.
                                                > >
                                                > > So similarly I imagine that many marblers over many years from many countries came up with the same or similar patterns, and just made up the names if they didn't know them. I have certainly done it myself, with the NJ Ripple Pattern, and that name started as a joke and stuck. It's a combination of zebra with a moire folding and movement done to it. I really had no name, it was a combination of techniques. Someone put me on the spot at a show and asked me the name, so I said I don't know, why not call it NJ Ripple, for a laugh. Anyway, not sure about everyone else but I think this is a charming aspect to marbling, and to music, though it is potentially confusing, I find it a fun kind of confusing. Give a few tries and examples and it seems everyone knows what everyone means pattern-wise anyway most of the time, or nowadays shoot over a digital picture... and you get the same, "Oh THAT!". Maybe I am wrong, but I enjoy the differences and don't take it
                                                too seriously.
                                                > >
                                                > > Iris Nevins
                                                > > www.marblingpaper.com
                                                > >
                                                > > ------------------------------------
                                                > >
                                                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                > >
                                                > >
                                                >
                                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                >
                                                > ------------------------------------
                                                >
                                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                >
                                                >

                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                                ------------------------------------

                                                Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              • irisnevins
                                                I think the system ain t broke, and don t see much fixing needed. Perhaps I am an artistic rustic , likely more a rube of sorts... and shy away from big words
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Aug 28, 2012
                                                  I think the system ain't broke, and don't see much fixing needed. Perhaps I am an "artistic rustic", likely more a rube of sorts... and shy away from big words or complicated terms. Being intensely UN-educated in my life except for my life experiences, or as I call it The School Of Hard Knocks, and being self taught in most everything I do (the exception was jewelry making, I think metalsmithing is wisely done with some sort of supervision in the beginning at least so you don't burn your house down, and I have had enough close calls with blades and fire even being very well trained for years!). I always like to learn things on a need to know basis, a little at a time. Being extremely right brained (and dyslexic so I hope I have the brain thing correctly!! The creative instinctual side is what I mean), I honestly am nearly incapable of intellectualizing any for of art or music I do. I am not saying this is a good thing, a balance is better... but it forces me to keep things as simple as possible and take the path of least resistance to the hopefully same results.

                                                  With music, I tried to read it for about 45 years, always a dismal failure, I'd revert to ear. The sound told me more than the note Name, ABCDEForG. I don't even have perfect pitch. I started playing fingerstyle guitar at 11, and am 60 now. The guitar was borrowed and I found melody lines and then complimentary notes by ear and put it together to come up with fingerstyle playing. luckily I had a good ear. I had no clue there was such a thing as chords, and no clue notes had letters attached to them, so I made up a system of by number. Not giving the notes numbers, but counting frets and strings. It became embedded in my memory...hear a note, the fingers know where to go, no thinking required. I still play visually and by number, and am not fond of chords or too many of them and actually my way of playing sounds richer and fuller somehow and is totally simple and uncomplicated. People said i played it like a harp, but that didn't sink in until I took up harp. I teach this method each year over Columbus Day Weekend in the Catskills at an Irish music festival. people are amazed how simple it is. Complicated is not necessarily better sounding in music or better in marbling. Often the simple has way more impact.

                                                  How does this tie into marbling nomenclature, and why I don't think it is so seriously critical to the art? Because you can communicate the same thing in other ways besides words. For music we have sounds. I know many musicians (mainly Celtic) who can play circles around the folks that know every detail of music theory, and they never read one lick of music and never will. In art, or marbling specifically, you can show an image, and as they say it is worth 1000 words.

                                                  Still I understand that it makes life a bit easier to have "proper" names, but I don't think it's the most important thing. I had to learn though, to read music minimally, once asked to teach harp. Just so the students and I can be doing the same exact thing. Without it, I improvise a lot, on whims, unplanned. I marble the same way though, those times I can relax and make whatever I feel like. When not on a custom order, that is play time. So then what... if someone comes up with a new pattern, I think they should be able to name it whatever they like....hopefully something that relates to the pattern, but they don't have to. Like those tunes called Paddy Fahey's for example. I recently came up with a new tune, I call The Mystery, on harp. I recorded it for the new CD....and thank heavens before my cover art was done, I realized it was extremely close to another old tune called The Rolling Wave. So close, I couldn't dare claim I composed it. So I still called it The Mystery, but said it was inspired by The Rolling Wave. Many people have also made up marbling patterns based on others, inspired by others...NJ Ripple is an example.

                                                  What I would really hate to see is some standardized board or group with rules one must answer to or be cleared by in order to name patterns, whether currently existing or future ones. I wonder too, if translated into different languages they will mean the same exact thing anyway. Maybe our German, Spanish or Turkish friends can answer that. Funny little things happen in translation... and this is not to do with marbling, but with names... when I was a kid growing up, my father was from Mexico. We'd have the Sunday papers in Spanish and English. The Popeye comic strip, I am sure many of you know who Olive Oyl was, well in the Spanish version her name was Rosario. That was a popular brand of Spanish olive oil that people related to. In the US, we think it's a name, period, no connection to olive oil. And Swee' Pea, the baby, in the comic strips was called Cocoliso, or coconut head, a name often used for a bald person. In English it would make no sense to call him coconut head. I am not sure if literally it means coconut head or coconut like, but that's what i was told. So how can you standardize marbling pattern names...and in which language? It may not mean the same thing to everyone in the world.

                                                  OK sorry to ramble on....
                                                  Iris Nevins
                                                  www.marblingpaper.com


                                                  On 08/28/12, uuglypher<uuglypher@...> wrote:

                                                  Jake...or do you prefer "Benson"?

                                                  You are certainly correct that " false cognates" of otherwise more precise terms do sometimes come into accepted use in spite of their flights-in-the-face of precise meaning. Do you mean to hold that when the need for a new term is rationally expressed and a new term is sought, we should pointedly seek it among the extant semantically erroneous lexicon? I merely suggest that we would better, in the case of a newly expressed need, choose a term of more specific and precise meaning. To do otherwise would seem to merely patronize the artistic rustics of the past, rather than attempt to use language for its intended purpose, that being to clearly convey intent and meaning.

                                                  It was Quintillian, the Iberian rhetorician and Roman Citizen of the Second Century AD, who held that we should speak not merely in a manner as to be capable of being understood. Rather, we ought speak in a manner that we be incapable of being misunderstood. His sentiment seems particularly applicable to the present discussion.

                                                  I wonder if there perhaps be Turkish, Arabic, or Farsi words that might more appropriately meet the need Anthony has noted. Indeed, the precise term may already exist in more than one language! I see no reason to limit the linguistic palatte of our craft and art to English cognates of Greek, of Latin, or of other Indo-European lexica.

                                                  Best regards,
                                                • anthonianthonianthoni
                                                  Speaking about other languages, it has always struck me that the Spanish word for the patten we know as Spanish is plegado - pleated . A far more
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Aug 29, 2012
                                                    Speaking about other languages, it has always struck me that the Spanish word for the patten we know as Spanish is " plegado" - " pleated" . A far more descriptive word for the pattern!


                                                    --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, uuglypher <uuglypher@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > Jake...or do you prefer "Benson"?
                                                    >
                                                    > You are certainly correct that " false cognates" of otherwise more precise terms do sometimes come into accepted use in spite of their flights-in-the-face of precise meaning. Do you mean to hold that when the need for a new term is rationally expressed and a new term is sought, we should pointedly seek it among the extant semantically erroneous lexicon? I merely suggest that we would better, in the case of a newly expressed need, choose a term of more specific and precise meaning. To do otherwise would seem to merely patronize the artistic rustics of the past, rather than attempt to use language for its intended purpose, that being to clearly convey intent and meaning.
                                                    >
                                                    > It was Quintillian, the Iberian rhetorician and Roman Citizen of the Second Century AD, who held that we should speak not merely in a manner as to be capable of being understood. Rather, we ought speak in a manner that we be incapable of being misunderstood. His sentiment seems particularly applicable to the present discussion.
                                                    >
                                                    > I wonder if there perhaps be Turkish, Arabic, or Farsi words that might more appropriately meet the need Anthony has noted. Indeed, the precise term may already exist in more than one language! I see no reason to limit the linguistic palatte of our craft and art to English cognates of Greek, of Latin, or of other Indo-European lexica.
                                                    >
                                                    > Best regards,
                                                    > Dave
                                                    >
                                                    > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                                    > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                                    >
                                                    > On Aug 28, 2012, at 4:00 AM, "jemiljan" <jemiljan@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > > Graham,
                                                    > >
                                                    > > The use of reticulation was an attempt to describe visual appearance based on current usage in similar fields, despite it being what linguists would call a "false cognate" usage of the Latin root. Humans as a rule, do this quite frequently, despite the apaprent lack of "semantic precision". Does a "shell" pattern look like actual shells? The fact is that printers and printmakers employ the term quite specifically, despite their "semantic laxity", and have now for some time.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > In any case, I'd still like to hear from a printmaker who knows what I'm talking about.
                                                    > >
                                                    > > Jake
                                                    > >
                                                    > > --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, uuglypher <uuglypher@> wrote:
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > With equal due respect, Jake, it would seem that when it is more than a bit-of -stretch to include a variety of introduced design elements as varieties of the effect of loosly characterized "reticulation" and to ignore their more salient common feature as, in fact, that of being an introduced design element, that the habit of some print makers to exercise semantic laxity in use of the term "reticulation" should not preclude use of the more functional and less limiting concept of " introduced design element" or of some other term of the same and more precise intent, which would, obviously include, rather than exclude "Tiger eye" from the rubric.
                                                    > > > While recognizing that words can change in meaning with time, it is the good fight to urge maintenance of semantic and functional precision when possible.
                                                    > > > Semantically meaningful terminology would seem to trump casually accepted obfuscating arcane argot.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > Just points to be considered in hope of promoting more broad comprehension of a yet-to-be settled term of art.
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > Best regards,
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > Dave Graham
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                                    > > > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:40 PM, "jemiljan" <jemiljan@> wrote:
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > > Will all due respect, Dave, while the etymology of the term you've given is correct, I think your definition is overly precise and narrow, and doesn't reflect the way that jewelers, printmakers, and even commercial printers I know generally employ it. Maybe they're wrong in your view, but they aren't referring to physical biological networks or the functionality of engineered structures at all.
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > > > Printmakers and offset printers use the term to refer to specific effects that can occur in ink films. For offset printers, these aberrations in the ink films, ranging from grainy, cracked, pinholed, or "rumpled" effects, and they are considered undesirable. It was often the result of too much moisture during printing (I originally trained as an apprentice pressman and worked in the industry for several years). Printmakers, on the other hand, often try and achieve these affects, typically through washes.
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > > > Specifically, I do think that there are greater and lesser and greater degrees of reticulated effects in the range of patterns suggested. It is not "all or none". The Stormont pattern achieves maximum reticulation within the spots of the last color applies - a lacy network of bubbles- while others like shell or scrotel achieve less so, but they are still analogous to the effects observed in reticulated washes. If you look at them closely with a magnifying lens, you can often observe a type of "networked" patterns formed in the pigment particles; they just aren't as obvious, pronounced and highly regimented.
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > > > On the other hand, a tiger-eye pattern might better be left as is. The term describes the effect perfectly. I've tended to use the term "reticulated for for the effects achieved within the spots of the Stormont, gloucester, Antique, Shell and Schrotel patterns, not Tiger Eye.
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > > > It just seems to me that if people working with color on paper are already employing a term- whether etymologically "correct" or not- is something to consider. Are there any other printmakers are on here, who would care to comment?
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > > > Jake Benson
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > > > --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, uuglypher <uuglypher@> wrote:
                                                    > > > > >
                                                    > > > > > An interesting and rational idea/request!
                                                    > > > > >
                                                    > > > > > However, the suggested term "reticulation" with its derived forms based on "reticulum"( Latin; net) reticular, reticulated, reticulation is, in fact, far more precise and restrictive in meaning in the terminology of design, art, biology, medicine, and engineering than has been suggested. It specifically relates to a functional and/or physical network / net-like/ web-like mode of interrelationship or pattern and certainly does not encompass the range of perceived morphologies that anthonianthonianthoni hopes to include under a single rubric. I suggest the search for a term is, indeed, justified and valid, and that we seek or construct as a neologism a term clearly encompassing on a generic basis the variety of local, " micro-environmental" morphological alterations that we all recognize and conceptually " lump" but have, as yet, no accepted term under which that specific and rationally inclusive conceptual lumping might logically be accomplished.
                                                    > > > > >
                                                    > > > > > Dave in South Dakota
                                                    > > > > >
                                                    > > > > > "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in!"
                                                    > > > > > Leonard Cohen, "Anthem"
                                                    > > > > >
                                                    > > > > > On Aug 26, 2012, at 5:52 PM, "anthonianthonianthoni" <anthonianthonianthoni@> wrote:
                                                    > > > > >
                                                    > > > > > > As you may already know, there is a family of patterns of marbled paper in which the paints are mixed with chemicals to alter the effect they give, e.g, shell , stormont, tiger eye, broken, etc.
                                                    > > > > > >
                                                    > > > > > > Now, has any name been yet invented to describe this large family of patterns?. If there is no such name, what do you suggest?
                                                    > > > > > >
                                                    > > > > > > A.L
                                                    > > > > > >
                                                    > > > > > >
                                                    > > > > >
                                                    > > > > >
                                                    > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    > > > > >
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > > >
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > >
                                                    > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    > > >
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                  • hamburgerbuntpapier_de
                                                    Hi all, first of all, Iris: the Munich papers are not yet online. They re working on it, still trying to come to grips with staff and funding. From what I
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Aug 29, 2012
                                                      Hi all,

                                                      first of all, Iris: the Munich papers are not yet online. They're working on it, still trying to come to grips with staff and funding. From what I understand from the scientist who did the catalogue work (Julia Rinck from Leipzig, art historian with specialisation in decorated papers and co-author of Guide Book), the unidentifiable papers were predominantly early 20th century.

                                                      To Jake:
                                                      I sold only 5 or 6 copies directly to the Americas, to persons and libraries I'm in personal contact with. All the rest of the orders were handled by resp. referred to Garrett. From what I gather, there should be many more in the USA than three around New York. I have no way to make sure where, though, particularly as many US customers buy via European sellers.

                                                      Terminology:
                                                      Please consider that decorated papers comprises more than marbling. Paper decoration is as endles as can be imagined.

                                                      If you need to include all conceivable techniques you will rather sooner than later need a common language. Not necessarily for the studio (my favourite 18th century paste papers will always be 4er and BR instead of Veined paste paper, multicoloured and Paste paper with impressed decoration, single coloured) or for talking shop (Oh THAT! is really quite useful), but certainly for the librarians and scientists of our time. In our scientific times, scientific work is what counts to keep decorated papers on the map.

                                                      Let me give you a sample. A librarian is confronted with a book for catalogueing. The book's cover has a decorated paper. The librarian is one of the common species who knows everything about catalogueing but much less about books and their ideosyncrasies. If we're lucky, he knows that he doesn't know, acts accordingly and writes: Cover material paper, red, technique not known.

                                                      But there are many options in case he believes he knows: Decorated paper. Red paper. Nice decorated paper. Red marbled paper. Or he looks up what the colleages in other libraries have done, consults their catalogues. Should those have images, our friend can hope to find a match. Obviously, without an image he's as much at a loss as before. In addition to an image, he can hope to find a correct term. If not, the problem increases. The hypothetical colleagues have written: Paste paper, red. Veiny paper, maybe printed. Chrysanthemum pattern. Aschaffenburg paper? Unknown technique, reddish.

                                                      Confusion.

                                                      A scientist in the Rare Book department in the State Library Berlin recognised the problem. He heads the catalogueing of the decorated papers sitting on the Rare Book Collection (for now, until 1850. Younger items will follow). He loves decorated papers but realised in time he doesn't know enough. Supported by external specialists (Julia Rinck, myself and the brocade-paper-man at the Weimar library) he started a database (a project in progress; a public online version hopefully follows), based on the system developed in Guide Book and extended in Munich.
                                                      The beauty of the terminology is that you don't need special technical knowledge, all you need is eyes and the readyness to train them. You can decide in every single case how deep you want to go into subjects.

                                                      The system was then introduced to the Association of all German-language Libraries and will be adapted as compulsory in due time. Libraries from other European countries have announced their interest to adapt the system into their languages.

                                                      This is great for research. Chances to find what you need sky-rockets. Sorts, techniques, regional specialities, tools ... can be compared and identified. I feel that craft, art and science, tradition and development need to cooperate. I fully agree with Hikmet Barutçugil's declaration that without holding on to tradition marbling wouldn't have survived until today, but that without development it will not survive much longer.

                                                      Susanne Krause
                                                    • dixongarrett
                                                      When discussing these papers as a group, I usually describe them as chemically altered patterns or chemically altered spot patterns , which is basically
                                                      Message 26 of 27 , Aug 29, 2012
                                                        When discussing these papers as a group, I usually describe them as "chemically altered patterns" or "chemically altered spot patterns", which is basically what they are (with a few exceptions - always exceptions): spot patterns where the primary effect can only be achieved through the addition of other substances/chemicals to the paint: oil, turpentine, soap, wax, potassium hydroxide, alum and a number of other chemicals. They all developed in the 1750-1850 period that corresponded to the exponential growth of the science of chemistry and the industrial revolution. I can imagine marblers of the time, likely out of boredom, grabbing anything they could find to see what would turn out and there was no attempt to analyze the science behind marbling until Joseph Halfer, but by that time these patterns had declined in favor and he did not address them - he apparently marketed a Tiger Eye solution but did not discuss it in his book. Paul Adam did analyze the effects of the different chemicals on the production of Tiger Eye Pattern but not until the 1920s when most of these patterns were all but extinct.
                                                        Garrett Dixon
                                                        --- In Marbling@yahoogroups.com, "anthonianthonianthoni" <anthonianthonianthoni@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > Perhaps you should call this group "[chemicaly] enhanced patterns". I don't think that calling them simply "enhanced" patterns is good, as it suggests that you cannot nake a proper marbled paper without adding oil, soda or potash to it....
                                                        > But that said, "chemicaly enhanced pattern" does not really roll off the tounge- any other suggestions? ( P'haps [heaven forbid!] a Latin or greek word?)
                                                        >
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.