The Practice Of Retouching And Editing Lettering

[caliken]

From time to time, views are expessed giving the impression that using guidelines and retouching or editing one’s work
is somehow underhand and, as a dubious practice, should be declared up front.

 

As a full-time calligrapher, I have always retouched and edited my work when necessary. Most artwork intended for
reproduction will be retouched as required. It’s never occurred to me that this might need an explanation as it seems
such an obvious thing to do, simply as a matter of course.

 

As clarification has been requested with regard to my working methods, perhaps it might be useful for me to be as
transparent and detailed as possible in my descriptions.

 

I use pen, scalpel, eraser, white gouache, black ink and anything else which may do the job. I admit that I did dabble for
a time with computer retouching, and if anyone cares to dig deep enough, there will be evidence of this on some of my
previous posts. I stopped using this practice for several reasons. I was always uneasy about attempting to use an
artificial means of retouching my work as I feel strongly that as much as possible should be done by hand; otherwise we
may as well just use computer fonts and be done with it. This episode was an aberration in my attempt to write with purity
by hand, in the time-honoured manner, and I prefer to forget that I strayed from the ‘straight and narrow’, albeit for a short
period. Even without this objection, I found retouching by computer to be too slow (in my ignorance) difficult to do with
sufficient accuracy (for me) and most importantly, too divorced from handwork and too mechanical for my taste. I soon
abandoned the practice and returned to traditional methods. I prefer my work to be all hand-produced which includes
retouching, and almost all of my many posts on this forum and elsewhere, have been retouched to a greater or lesser
extent. I also frequently edit my work by moving elements around, by physically cutting and pasting with scissors and paste.

 

Such is my obsession in getting it right, that the subsequent retouching can often take considerably longer than the writing

 

Obviously, one-off work such as scrolls cannot be retouched and I am capable of writing without retouching, when
necessary. For example, on commission, I produced the Bowes-Lyon family tree of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.
It hangs on prominent display in Glamis Castle. Work of this nature requires considerable concentration and the process
isn’t always the most enjoyable as a result. Writing for reproduction is much more relaxing as I know that I can always
tidy-up and tittivate it as much as I please by retouching and/or editing it, later.

Having abandoned my abortive computer-retouching attempts, my work is hand-produced and that is how I describe it.
When I say “hand-produced” I also mean as opposed to production by using a computer font. I use guide lines in all my
work and I also use a light box, from time to time.

 

Ken
.

[TXKat]

Ken,

 

I admire the work you do, retouched or not. Having taken a graphics class in college which taught the art of creating for print, there were ALWAYS hand touch-ups necessary. Reproducing causes all tiny imperfections and line irregularities to glaringly show even when not immediately evident to the naked eye.

 

It is a tedious task and I applaud you for sharing this information. Having my information in advance, I never once thought that hand-produced meant there would never be any touching up!

 

Kudos to your patience and your skill!!

[dms525]

Thanks for this, Ken. I, for one, have no difficulty accepting the way in which you define and approach your craft. And I appreciate your cool-headed explanation, particularly in the face of the recent criticism you've encountered.

 

I believe there is a definitional problem within the broad domain of getting letters and words onto more or less solid surfaces, be it papyrus, vellum, paper or stone. A number of the books in my own little library have titles with multiple terms for presumably different activities within that domain - lettering, writing, penmanship, calligraphy, handwriting, formal writing. I'm still looking for any of these books, all by esteemed authorities on these subjects, that offers clear definitions of these terms that differentiate one from another. I think this matters because it appears there are different standards applied to them, although their standards also have commonalities.

 

One must cultivate a tolerance for ambiguity.

 

Regards,

 

David

[smk]

The practice of touching up as well as cutting and pasting has been around for a while. I would go as far as to say that is even expected to a certain degree, especially when the article is being prepared for reproduction.

 

The issue, however, wasn't the acceptability of these practices but the claim that result shown on screen was an exact reproduction of what was on paper e.g. exposure, composition etc.

 

I hope the issue is now settled for good.

 

Regards,

Salman

[HDoug]

Thanks for the info, Ken. So I'm thinking that your practice is pretty much the same as that of a calligrapher/artist in the medieval era. Am I warm?

 

Doug

[caliken]

Thanks for the info, Ken. So I'm thinking that your practice is pretty much the same as that of a calligrapher/artist in the medieval era. Am I warm?

 

Doug

You're probably right....at 75 years of age. I'm a dinosaur!

 

Ken

[caliken]

The practice of touching up as well as cutting and pasting has been around for a while. I would go as far as to say that is even expected to a certain degree, especially when the article is being prepared for reproduction.

 

The issue, however, wasn't the acceptability of these practices but the claim that result shown on screen was an exact reproduction of what was on paper e.g. exposure, composition etc.

 

I hope the issue is now settled for good.

 

Regards,

Salman

For me, retouching by hand is an integral part of lettering, and what I have on paper after retouching is what you see on the screen.

 

I was very careful in my wording of this topic, to avoid any suggestion of contention. I had hoped that the topic on its own merits, would be of sufficient interest to stimulate response. To the best of my knowledge, this subject has never been raised here, before.

 

Ken

Edited October 31, 2014 by Ken Fraser

[caliken]

I believe there is a definitional problem within the broad domain of getting letters and words onto more or less solid surfaces, be it papyrus, vellum, paper or stone. A number of the books in my own little library have titles with multiple terms for presumably different activities within that domain - lettering, writing, penmanship, calligraphy, handwriting, formal writing. I'm still looking for any of these books, all by esteemed authorities on these subjects, that offers clear definitions of these terms that differentiate one from another. I think this matters because it appears there are different standards applied to them, although their standards also have commonalities.

 

You're absolutely right, David, This problem of differing definitions is a constant source of confusion.

 

Ken

[cellmatrix]

Ken, its quite interesting learning how you do your work, and I for one really appreciate the time and care that you take in performing it. Your variety of examples have helped me quite a bit in my attempts at developing a cursive italic hand over the last couple years. More recently I've been trying my hand at monoline spencerian. I first took up your recommendation of modern business penmanship by EC Mills and have since been supplementing that with practice of some of your excellent examples, posted on this forum. I would have to say, more than anyone here, you have helped and inspired me in taking up each of these writing styles, which is something that I will benefit from all my life. So I'd just like to express my appreciation for your contributions. To be frank, I've been the recipient of negativity on this forum too. But I really hope that you do not change at all what or how you produce your work, but simply that you continue posting here so that others may learn from what you do.

[caliken]

Where I think there are grounds for complaint is where the alteration misrepresents the actual penmanship, particularly if accomplished through image manipulation, whether performed in the digital or analog domain. My rule of thumb is to discount any image where I cannot see (or sense) the paper AND the ink. (I am likewise dubious of any work were I have difficulty seeing the path of the pen.)

 

 

I agree with your "grounds for complaint".

 

In my case, my lettering is produced directly with the pen. I then can't resist the compulsion to retouch, but this only involves tidying up ragged edges and removing the odd kink in hairlines. It takes me a long time, because I'm slow at it .

 

Ken

[caliken]

Ken, its quite interesting learning how you do your work, and I for one really appreciate the time and care that you take in performing it. Your variety of examples have helped me quite a bit in my attempts at developing a cursive italic hand over the last couple years. More recently I've been trying my hand at monoline spencerian. I first took up your recommendation of modern business penmanship by EC Mills and have since been supplementing that with practice of some of your excellent examples, posted on this forum. I would have to say, more than anyone here, you have helped and inspired me in taking up each of these writing styles, which is something that I will benefit from all my life. So I'd just like to express my appreciation for your contributions. To be frank, I've been the recipient of negativity on this forum too. But I really hope that you do not change at all what or how you produce your work, but simply that you continue posting here so that others may learn from what you do.

I'm delighted to have been of some help. Posts such as yours, encourage me to continue, Thank you.

 

Ken

[Mickey]

I agree with your "grounds for complaint".

 

In my case, my lettering is produced directly with the pen. I then can't resist the compulsion to retouch, but this only involves tidying up ragged edges and removing the odd kink in hairlines. It takes me a long time, because I'm slow at it .

 

Ken

 

You miss my point, Ken. That is exactly the sort of alternation I find troubling in something purporting to be an example of penmanship, especially Spencerian OP. It's like using autotune on a Verdi aria.

[HDoug]

 

You miss my point, Ken. That is exactly the sort of alternation I find troubling in something purporting to be an example of penmanship, especially Spencerian OP. It's like using autotune on a Verdi aria.

 

Mickey, your "autotune" analogy is incorrect. Ken is not letting any mechanical or electronic device make the correction, he is doing it himself. A more correct musical recording analogy would be punching in/out, where an incorrect note (or incorrectly played note or section) is replaced by another performance of those notes. This technique was used by pianist Glenn Gould who was subject to criticism similar to yours against Ken. Listeners benefitted from Gould's perfectionism by being able to listen to an interpretation of a piece that was as close as possible to his conception of it, although it might have been impossible to hear in "live" performance.

 

Your objection to the technique Ken describes is noted and I am hoping you will not feel compelled to bring it up with every single superb example that Ken posts.

 

Doug

[Skagit]

Am I really reading this right that people are calling out Ken because he retouches ragged edges and kinkers? I can only imagine what a paying client would say if he turned over a commission that wasn't retouched to perfection.

 

Ken - your writing samples are tremendously useful and I, for one, could care less how you get to the end product. Feel free to retouch as much as you like...it's a benefit to us all to have such a broad body of excellent examples to study at our leisure.

 

This isn't a live writing competition where you have one shot at perfection. Most of us are here to study and learn, and to do that we need high quality examples, and Ken's are some of the best out there.

 

Haters gonna hate...

[caliken]

 

You miss my point, Ken. That is exactly the sort of alternation I find troubling in something purporting to be an example of penmanship, especially Spencerian OP. It's like using autotune on a Verdi aria.

Thank you all for your interest and contributions.

 

Mickey,

 

I produce my writing the conventional way with pointed or square-edged nibs. In retouching, I never make any alteration to the structure of the lettering (frankly, I don't think that I need to). All I do, is clean up ragged edges and smooth out minor kinks in the hairlines. To be honest, in most cases, I don't have to do even that, but as a manic perfectionist, I can't resist polishing the lettering by retouching

In relatively few cases, where spacing appears to be slightly 'off' I edit by cutting, pasting and re-positioning. This is done without any alteration to the lettering itself.

 

As David pointed out earlier, there is no definitive definition of 'Penmanship' which creates all sorts of problems.

 

Ken

Edited November 1, 2014 by Ken Fraser

[Columba Livia]

In my case, my lettering is produced directly with the pen.

I think that's a very interesting point, because "produced directly with the pen" isn't necessarily the same thing as written with a pen.

 

Purely as a theoretical example of what I was thinking about: I could use a pen and lightbox to trace letters from the Universal Penman, or from a piece of ornamental penmanship done by someone else, and still describe it as lettering produced directly with a pen.

 

I suppose there may be a time and a place for traced letters, but If I was tracing letters I'd definitely make it clear what I'd done, without using possibly ambiguous words or phrases, and I wouldn't allow people to think it was my work.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Columba Livia

[Mickey]

 

 

As David pointed out earlier, there is no definitive definition of 'Penmanship' which creates all sorts of problems.

 

 

 

In such cases, it's often wise to consult the commonly held understanding or the first relevant definition found in a general purpose dictionary. My handy dandy dictionary (courtesy of Apple) gives us this definition of Penmanship, "the art or skill of writing by hand" (emphasis mine) "a person's handwriting." That seems clear enough for government work. The question would seem to be 'when does something cease being writing and become lettering?' Again, let's consult the same handy dandy dictionary for a definition of writing: "The activity or skill of marking words on paper and composing text." Granularity seems to be determinative: words or text, not letters. Tidy. No words are stretched, bent, or jargonized to give us a common sense dividing line between lettering and writing.

 

I find no compelling reason to denote or apologize for cut and paste, provided the sections cut are sufficiently long that the performance - the actual writing - is captured faithfully. Retouching a shade in some styles is no more alteration than dotting an i or crossing a t. Beyond that I believe is a vast grey area, worth exploring or discussing with minimal preconception.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Mickey

[dms525]

Fuzzy definitions are part of the problem, but, it seems to me, there is a more important underlying philosophical issue, and that is the question of authenticity. And there is the additional question of the relative importance of the "how" and the "what." In other words, is greater importance given the method of producing writing or the final form of the writing? I would suggest that the greatest authenticity of writing as process precludes re-touching, while the greatest perfection of writing as outcome may require it. Further, I would suggest that these two values can (and do) co-exist in some balance.

 

In this context, I offer a quotation from none other than Edward Johnston (quoted by Noel Rooke in a Nov. 13, 1945 BBC broadcast):

 

I shouldn't be guided by a man who said "there are two sides to everything." The smallest possible number of sides you can expect to find is four, on that rare object we choose to call a three-sided pyramid. A polyhedron may have several dozen sides. In a living thing, or a real problem, all these dozens may have different shapes - as well as textures and hardnesses, and all have quite different relations to one another.

 

He insisted that all these shapes and textures and hardnesses be examined and understood, in order to discover "the truth." And his definition of "beauty" was a thing that was profoundly "true."

 

David

Edited November 1, 2014 by dms525

[Mickey]

Fuzzy definitions are part of the problem, but, it seems to me, there is a more important underlying philosophical issue, and that is the question of authenticity. And there is the additional question of the relative importance of the "how" and the "what." In other words, is greater importance given the method of producing writing or the final form of the writing? I would suggest that the greatest authenticity of writing as process precludes re-touching, while the greatest perfection of writing as outcome may require it. Further, I would suggest that these two values can (and do) co-exist in some balance.

 

In this context, I offer a quotation from none other than Edward Johnston (quoted by Noel Rooke in a Nov. 13, 1945 BBC broadcast):

 

I shouldn't be guided by a man who said "there are two sides to everything." The smallest possible number of sides you can expect to find is four, on that rare object we choose to call a three-sided pyramid. A polyhedron may have several dozen sides. In a living thing, or a real problem, all these dozens may have different shapes - as well as textures and hardnesses, and all have quite different relations to one another.

 

He insisted that all these shapes and textures and hardnesses be examined and understood, in order to discover "the truth." And his definition of "beauty" was a thing that was profoundly "true."

 

David

 

Personally, I don't believe concepts like truth, art, and beauty mix all that well.* One can search a hay stack and never find the needle, yet Johnson's statement suggests that looking is good enough. Not quite as bald as Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it," but possibly more intellectually suspect. I prefer clear criteria (where appropriate, useful, or necessary), the easiest ones to observe usually being proscriptive, e.g., 'thou shalt not whatever.'

 

That said, I don't really think there is a fuzziness problem here. Ken, I believe, quite correctly partitions writing from lettering, allowing their common sense definitions (and usage) to differentiate them. The only question remaining then is whether a particular work is intended to be viewed (and possibly judged) as lettering or as writing.

 

* Johnston's argument is specious, a strawman. Some things (typically) do have only two side,* though truth has at least four - Truth, Untruth, Not known, and Not knowable - or possibly five - Truth is whatever I say it is. (For you quantum computers, I should probably add 'simultaneously truth and untrue.')

Edited November 2, 2014 by Mickey

[dms525]

 

Personally, I don't believe concepts like truth, art, and beauty mix all that well.* One can search a hay stack and never find the needle, yet Johnson's statement suggests that looking is good enough. Not quite as bald as Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it," but possibly more intellectually suspect. I prefer clear criteria (where appropriate, useful, or necessary), the easiest ones to observe usually being proscriptive, e.g., 'thou shalt not whatever.'

 

That said, I don't really think there is a fuzziness problem here. Ken, I believe, quite correctly partitions writing from lettering, allowing their common sense definitions (and usage) to differentiate them. The only question remaining then is whether a particular work is intended to be viewed (and possibly judged) as lettering or as writing.

 

* Johnson's argument is specious, a strawman. Some things (typically) do have only two side,* though truth has at least four - Truth, Untruth, Not known, and Not knowable - or possibly five - Truth is whatever I say it is. (For you quantum computers, I should probably add 'simultaneously truth and untrue.')

 

No, "looking is good enough" was not Johnson's position at all. He was saying not looking at all the angles before determining the correct view is a poor approach.

 

Regarding fuzziness: It may not be the definitions that are fuzzy, although I'm not so certain. Does the difference between lettering and writing reside in the method of production, in the intention of the producer or in the perception of the viewer?

 

David