Talk:Master L. Cz.

Aquatint?

(started at my talk)Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question: the Grove claims that Master LCz used aquatint in his prints, but this seems very dubious. I thought aquatint was a later invention...? Lithoderm 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still digging on this, but it does seem odd, but not an isolated reference. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited opinion: It must be an "aquatint-like effect" as he's at least 150-odd years too early (don't see it myself though - there's heavy cross-hatching in the Temptation) Yomangani ^talk 14:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy & continue this at Talk:Master L. Cz.. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the only mention of aquatint in Landau, David, and Parshall, Peter. The Renaissance Print, Yale, 1996, is p. 324, where a trial plate by Daniel Hopfer, who was certainly the important early etcher, is mentioned, citing the "classic study" by Gustav Pauli on the origins of etching (don't know it - in German?), who compared Hopfer's tonal etching technique with aquatint "even though it was made long before the recognised debut of the aquatint technique". However, they (Parshall in fact here) say Hopfer's technique "is not at all comparable to the technique of aquatint". More later. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in Alan Shestack; Fifteenth century Engravings of Northern Europe; 1967, National Gallery of Art, Washington (Catalogue), LOC 67-29080, no. 125, he talks of "the variety & density of burin strokes" in the last engravings being "vigorously "painterly"". Anthony Griffiths in Prints and Printmaking, p. 92 , British Museum Press (in UK), 2nd edn, is interesting on "idiosyncratic but inconsequential" early experiments, mentioning Hopfer but not LCz. But I'm wondering if there is a more recent paper claiming he used aquatint. 87.194.52.251 (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]