By Josef Woodard
News-Press Correspondent
Photos by Wayne McCall

Printmaker Bay Hallowell often seems to surf around available and accidental influences and idea-triggers, which may give rise to a new series of expressions.  Such is the case in her deceptively simple and enigmatic exhibition called “Marginalia,” now aptly nestled in the cozy nook of the Faulkner West Gallery at the downtown public library.

In that small, long room, the artist can be found experimenting and improvising, visually mumbling and snooping in the margins of a good idea, shuffling letters and linguistic meanings, and generally ferreting out the theme of the very word of the show’s title.  Using monoprints and stencils, collographs and other media, she stacks the letters and reorders them, scruffs them up, leaves them polished or affects them with sundry printmaking techniques.  But whatever the variation or accentuation of each piece, “Marginalia” is the word in the epicenter of this artist’s playful arena.

Artists have long been fascinated by the power of select words and phrases, fodder for treatments and distortions in a more visual than language-related way.  Ed Ruscha has made a career out of painted, loaded words on canvas, and Jim Dine has found himself in love (ironically and otherwise) with the word—and heart-shaped symbol for—“love.”  Deeper in art history, Bauhaus design notions explored the expressive potential of letters and Kurt Schwitters and other Dadaists and deconstructionist types have latched onto language for reuse and recycling in their artistic language. 

Marginalia 10
Marginalia 12

In this case, Ms. Hallowell has a ripe word to mess around with, as visual putty, having to do with the digressionistic scribblings in the margins of a text, or the quality of that which is presumably “marginal,” but possibly a case of profundity in the periphery.

By virtue of the artist honing in on a very specific thematic target for her “variations on a theme” series, the word itself becomes a hypnotic blur.  Following the progression and sequence of pieces, especially in those numbered 1 to 16, we intuitively sense a kind of quasi-narrative flow, through the investigations and reinventions.  No. 10 has a dreamy, liquid-y overlay, while 12 finds the letters subjected to a mad scramble and fragmentation effect, rendered nearly illegible except as pure design, and 16 pits the word—in an early 20th century, Art Deco font—sandwiched between a warm yellow-orange-green foundation and the random ratatat of black dot-splatters on the surface.

Marginalia 16
Marginalia Trace 1, 2,3

Other later variations continue the process of plumbing expressive possibilities within the artist’s self-limited source.  In a few pieces, commercial letters are placed in a hip pattern with a shambling, tumbling charm a la Mr. Schwitters’ “Merz” aesthetic.  As if capping off the series with a ghostly echo of a finale, “Marginalia Trace 1, 2, 3” consists of the hand-scrawled word in positive and negative forms, suggesting a palimpsest-like hint of archeological enigma.  Marginalia rarely seemed so centered, and curiosity inflaming. 

July 11 – July 17, 2014
Santa Barbara News-Press, Scene Magazine (p. 51)

Santa Barbara Printmakers
Art in the Mayor's Office
July 3rd - Sep 30th

View the prints any time the Mayor's office is open to the public

MARGINALIA by Bay Hallowell

Santa Barbara Central Library West Gallery
July 1st - 31st

Bay Hallowell is pleased to announce an exhibition of her work, titled MARGINALIA: Recent Prints, in the West Gallery
of the Santa Barbara Public Library.

This series of unique monoprints was inspired by her unexpected encounter with the word “marginalia,” the title of an essay by Glenn Adamson in The Female Gaze: Women Artists Making Their World, an exhibition catalog published by the Pennsylvania Academy of Art in Philadelphia.  Throughout a year of printmaking, Hallowell created more than twenty dynamic, multi-layered abstractions of this word using stencil, collograph, and trace drawing techniques. 

She attributes her on-going fascination with words to the sense of pure joy she experienced when she first learned to read.  For her, marginalia evolved from its dictionary definition[1] and from Adamson’s metaphorical focus on women artists, to include a wide range of people, places, art objects and values located in the margins--on the edges--of whatever the main “text” was or is[2].

[1] Marginalia are scribbles, comments and illuminations in the margins of a book (Wikipedia, 4/28/2014).
[2] I always feel that the margins tell you more than the center of the page ever could.” Marcia Tucker (A Short Life of Trouble: Forty Years in the New York Art World, University of California Press, 2008, page 1.)
Summer Art in Ojai

Show dates: July 5th - August 30th

Printmaking and Technology: Interview with Elaine LeVasseur

Recently a new Tamarind Institute student doing research for a paper around the topic of technology and printmaking specifically focusing on how today's advances in digital technology have affected the fine art printmaking world interviewed our very own Elaine LeVasseur on the subject. Here is the interview:

How did you get started in printmaking?


What printmaking processes are you familiar with?
SOFTGROUND, SUGAR LIFT, in intaglio, relief, four color process, viscosity,
with chine colle', dye resist, a' la poupee';
(Specifically, I do not know paper plate lithography, letterpress or

As an educator and collaborative printer (correct me if I'm wrong, I thought
Jason said you were a collaborative printer), have you seen interest in
printmaking rise and fall through the years?
Yes, in 1990, the art market and the print market had gone to hell and all
my artists clients were emotionally and financially wrecked. There was no
work. At the same time, it seemed as though most of my students at Santa
Barbara City College were more flakey and mostly wanted to learn printmaking
to silkscreen T-shirts of their favorite bands for the local black market
(predecessor to the practice of up and downloading pirated music and video)
or, at best, corner the local market on handmade greeting cards via bland
linocuts. By '91, all the art dealers who sold my prints all over the US,
had gone out of business and one cheated me out of payment for nine large
works. (This was a black time for many artists I knew in Los Angeles, at
least. I personally know several whose gallerists did not pay, or who
repeatedly reported sale prices lower than actual, in order to pay a smaller
fee to the consigning artist.)
I got back into printmaking in 97 when I attended two solid weeks of a 8
week program in Boston that was a Contemporary Printmaking Symposium. It
involved 22 institutions in and around Boston and there has never been
anything like it since. It connected me with printmakers all over the world
and I realized that my experience of there being no interest in printmaking
was more about California. I realized at that time that printmaking had to
be reintroduced regionally and generationally due to the high level of
technique required to master it. Glassblowing and fine furniture making are
other arts that require this regeneration, otherwise the craft dies with the
teacher or atelier owner. Printmaking and other process and equipment-heavy
arts require a very enthusiastic, outgoing artist who is capable of drawing
in students and artist-clients over a period of decades. Talented
printmakers can be self-taught and solitary, but this is rare, and does not
inspire new collectors.

What sort of changes have you witnessed with printmaking during your time
involved with it?
Either in the process or how printmaking is perceived.
I have witnessed the rise and fall of popularity of stone lithography. It's
rise with Tamarind's success in luring famous artists to printmaking in Los
Angeles in the 60's, its quick spread to New York, Florida, Texas, Kansas
and Canada, the race to make the biggest and most technically difficult
prints by both Ken Tyler, Gemini GEL and others, then and its precipitous
fall during the financial disaster of the early '90's, due to its expensive,
laborious, unwieldy and unforgiving processes. Finally, I have seen the
disappearance of printmaking studios in large universities across the US,
along with the abandonment of dark room photography. I have seen the
invention of the photocopy machine, pre-sensitized photo etching plates from
Japan; Ball aluminum plates for lithography and their pre-sensitized plates.
And finally, the arrival of the first good digital imaging machines, the
Iris printers in Boston and other major cities. Tons of prints from the
first 10 years of digital printing have been lost due to fugitive ink
colors, including blacks.

Do you think there have been any technological advancements that have had a
significant impact on printmaking? Please explain.

Yes, the availability of pre-coated metal plates enabled photo images to be
made more easily in etching and lithography. Before these materials were
available, a printmaker had to have a good darkroom with oversized trays and
sinks, correctly store expensive toxic chemicals and spend long periods
getting coatings to be smooth and adhere well. This was backbreaking work
and generally only rich artists or commercial (chain galleries) artists
could afford to do them. Now, excellent photo images, including fine text,
are quite easy to achieve, even in larger formats.
The second great technical advance for printmakers was popularity of the
silk-screened T-shirt. This drove the opening of screen printing shops and
also meant that even smaller cities had shops with large exposure lamps and
vacuum tables that could be accessed for making photo silk screens, and
photo zinc and copper, etc. I don't think the photo films such as Imag-On
made much impact compared to the screen print shops.

What are your takes on the rise of digital techniques in art making and
digital printing? Do you think these new techniques are harmful to traditional
printmaking techniques such as lithography? Or helpful? Neither?

The good and bad of digital imaging has been heavily discussed in every arts
journal and school for the past 15 years and we all realize that controlling
the use of anything that can be transmitted digitally will soon be
impossible and ultimately a non-issue. On the positive side, it's now
easier and more fun to use computers to do things that only geniuses with a
budget or special access used to be able to do. Of course, computers and the
Web are quite democratic and allow the truly talented to be more productive,
more widely appreciated and their work better documented and preserved than
ever before.
On the "dark side", everyone knows that currently, in every creative
endeavor from writing, to music and visual art, it is difficult for those
without great talent to avoid the temptation of digitally copying and
re-using the work of others without permission. It is now called re-mixing
in music and collage or re-visioning in the visual arts, but is still
considered lying and stealing in fiction and non fiction writing. Dance and
theater are actually about reproduction, so perhaps only pirated videos of
performances appear to be an issue there. Computers, the Internet and
digital output devices, I think, result in lots more people with arts
degrees and a far smaller percentage of those graduates able to understand,
much less master drawing, design and color use. That many artists and art
consumers think that being able to use a computer to make art is an artistic
achievement in and of itself is another issue. This should disappear as a
problem within the next 10 years when everyone is using computer devices to
invent their own art and billions of images will be available to anyone.

Do you find that there is more experimentation with digital techniques in
combination with traditional printmaking?

It is very common to use digital technology in printmaking. It replaces dark
room photography in all its forms. I have offered a popular photo polymer
class through Santa Barbara City College since 1998. There are few
printmakers within a 100 mile radius who have not used digital processes by
now, at least to document their prints for catalogs and websites.
I personally use the web to do research for my own art and to document the
works. I do a substantial amount of collaborative art projects, most of
which use digital imaging.

What do you see in the future for printmaking processes as we continue to make
the shift to a more digital culture?

Hand processes will continue to be sought out and mastered by artists who
desire to work directly with materials and equipment. However, printmaking
training and equipment will become more difficult to access. Artists are
already finding that they must travel farther, pay more, and rely on
personal networks to learn processes or arrange for editions. Hand pulled
prints will become more rare for the non-famous or non-rich, as it used to
be prior to the 1960's.