BY ARTHUR HUGHES. WOOD-ENGRAVING FROM GORDON HAKE’S “PARABLES” (CHAPMAN AND HALL).
The most modern of these developments are worthy of special notice both in Europe and America. But before pointing out the changes and results that have come from them, it may be well to say something about process. Upon this subject there are two widely differing factions. It is not at all curious that the artists, the men who practise the art of illustration, should be found almost unanimously on one side, while the critics, whose business it is to preach about an art of which they know nothing in practice, are ranged upon the other. There are a few critics of intelligence, who understand the requirements and limitations of both process and wood-engraving, just as there are hack and superior illustrators who neither know nor care anything about any form of reproduction.
Many advantages are claimed for wood-engraving. The print from an engraving on wood gives, it is said, a softer, richer, fuller impression than the print from the mechanically engraved process block. But not in one case out of a hundred thousand is the wood block itself printed from: the illustration which delights the critics has, in reality, been printed from a cast of the block made of exactly the same metal as the cast from the process block, and the softness, the velvety quality, is therefore due to the imagination of the critic who is unable to tell the difference. Indeed, to distinguish between a mechanically produced block and one engraved on wood, provided the subject of the drawing is reasonably simple, is so difficult, that when neither of the blocks is signed, no living expert on the subject would venture an off-hand opinion. Between good facsimile engraving and good process there is really no difference at all, excepting in a few particulars. For in the mechanically engraved process block, to use the ordinary term, the lines made by the artist on paper, are photographed directly on to the metal plate; these lines are protected by ink which is rolled upon them with an ordinary ink roller, the sticky ink adhering to the lines of the photograph, and nowhere else. This inked photograph is then placed in a bath of acid, and the exposed portions are eaten away; the zinc or other metal block is set up with a wooden back, type high, and is ready to print from. The process is so ridiculously simple that it can be done in a very few hours.
Process blocks for line work, and nearly always half-tone blocks, have to be finished by a clever engraver especially employed for the purpose. It is very hard for him, as it leaves him no chance for original work, but in course of time it is hoped that the process will be so perfected that the services of the engraver can be dispensed with. There are other methods, such as that of using swelled gelatine, to produce the same results, but the biting of zinc that I have described is the most popular.
BY G. R. SEYMOUR. WOOD-ENGRAVING FROM “THE MAGAZINE OF ART” (CASSELL).
In the case of the wood-engraving, the drawing is photographed in the same way on the wood block, but the engraver proceeds slowly, tediously, and laboriously with his tools to cut away the wood and leave the lines in relief. This requires an amount of devotion to painstaking drudgery which is appalling. As many days will be given to the production of a good wood-engraving, as hours are needed to produce a good process block. The results obtained by a first-class wood-engraver on the one hand, on the other by the first-class mechanical reproduction which is always watched by a first-class man, may be so close as to be indistinguishable. But there is no artistic gain in employing the wood-engraver, while great artistic loss is involved, since the latter, who can scarce enjoy doing this sort of thing, is compelled to waste his time in competing with a chemical and mechanical combination which does the work just as well; besides, there is as much difference in the cost as in the methods themselves, a process block being worth about as many shillings as the wood-engraving is pounds. As the results are equal, I see no reason why the publisher should be called upon to pay this large sum of money, unless he wishes to, simply for what is absolutely a fad. I admit, however, that facsimile engravings by the early Englishmen and Frenchmen, and some of the Americans and Danes of the present day, are worth quite as much money as is asked for them. But I am just as certain that mechanical engravers will go on improving their mechanical process until facsimile wood-engravers are left in the rear. Ordinary good process work, which can be printed with type, is, at the present moment, equal to any facsimile wood-engraving. The more elaborate methods, such as the photogravure of Amand Durand, are infinitely better, and only to be compared to etching.
