Talk:Wood engraving

message: There is an enormous difference between woodcut and wood engraving, not just in the technical aspects but also in the appearance and visual impact of each art form.
To combine the articles in one would be counterintuitive, confusing to non-artists and generally counterproductive.
I hope in the near future to add information - and possibly articles - to this part of the encyclopedia but first I have to become sufficiently familiar with using 'wiki' to make my contributions useful and stylistically acceptable to the site.
Freiherrin 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. There must be an absolute confusion in the minds of the public, when even the British Museum gets it wrong  describing a woodengraving as a RELIEF print. Perhaps one of the main problems is a reluctance to call artists who produce woodcuts as woodcutters. Both Paul Nash & Gwen Raverat were woodcutters only, yet there are books on The Woodngravings of Paul Nash & The Woodengravings of Gwen RaveratLabocetta (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be separate articles about woodcut and wood engraving 

message: The two articles should certainly NOT be merged, they are different techniques, as everybody above I think agrees. In the C19 they were often referred to confusingly, but now this is no longer the case. The 1911 EB was (typically) rather old-fashioned in continuing the confusion - AM Hind's books, published from 1908 onwards, use the modern terms. I hope I have solved the problem by a rewrite of the first para, a few touches elsewhere & mainly by removing the account below of woodcut. This is fuller than in the current woodcut article & maybe could be worked in there, so I copy here. It needs some updating & linking. 
The real problem is the number of articles on artists etc which continue to call them wood-engravers etc when they worked in woodcut. I think the Dürer article did this until I recently worked on it & dozens more still do.
Here's the para I cut:
"The original method — which is more precisely termed wood cutting, since it used a knife rather than engraving tools — was developed around 1400. The outlines of the design to be engraved were put down on a side of smooth-grained wood, and, usually with a knife, the excess surface of the wood block (all but the lines) would be cut away, a process called blocking. This left a set of raised wooden lines on the face of the block. In order make a print of this engraving, thick ink was applied to the raised design. This is known as a relief. Finally, a sheet of paper (or other material) was pressed firmly against the wood in order to assure that all the lines printed. This method led directly to the development of the printing press, and the 1453 introduction of a press using movable type by Johann Gutenberg."
Johnbod 01:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorted, I hope 

message: I don't think Thomas Nast cut his own wood engravings, and I'm not so sure about Dore either.  Perhaps there is a section of the list on artists who had significant output designing wood engravings to which Winslow Homer could be added.  What about Blair Hughes-Stanton?  Surely he belongs with that Golden Cockerel Press crowd already in the list.  Also, didn't Ward use more conventional woodcut techniques? Mddietz 18:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There don't seem to be many (=? any other) current editors with knowledge of the subject. I watch the page, but know very little about modern work in the medium. So go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: This is specifically re "organization/organisation".  As mentioned in the wikipedia article on the word, the Oxford English Dictionary itself says there is no reason to use the -ise form.  So why be precious?  Let us hope there won't be any more silliness on this.Freiherrin (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary spelling revisions 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion