Never to be repeated: cancellation proofs in the Kenneth Tyler Collection
by Alice Desmond
Never to be repeated: cancellation proofs in the Kenneth Tyler Collection
A cancellation proof is a print created from a defaced printing matrix. Their purpose is to provide assurance that a 'limited edition' is truly limited, by demonstrating that no further identical prints can be made.1 According to most definitions, the creation of a cancellation proof is an act of destruction that permanently voids the artist's intended image. Although cancelling matrices and creating cancellation proofs has been a common practice since the advent of creating artist prints in limited editions, very little is written about this subject other than descriptions of how cancellation proofs are made, definitions of them, with regard to their record-keeping function, or explanations of the role of cancellation with regard to rarity and authenticity. While the process of cancelling matrices and the primary purposes of creating cancellation proofs are well acknowledged, the cancelled images themselves are seldom examined. Although some examples are held in museum collections they are almost never displayed in exhibitions or reproduced in publications. By considering cancellation prints only within the narrow scope of their practical function - overlooking the visual qualities of the objects themselves - a number of interesting ways of considering this type of prints remain unexamined.
In this paper I explore different ways of looking at cancellation prints by discussing examples from the National Gallery of Australia (NGA) Kenneth Tyler Print Collection, which holds over 40 examples of cancellation proofs and cancelled matrices by artists that worked with American master printer Kenneth Tyler. The Tyler Collection also contains archival photographs that document the cancellation process. The breadth of these holdings, which encompasses a range of artistic styles and printmaking techniques, reveals an array of different approaches that creators have taken to 'cancelling' their work, and invites deeper consideration of cancellation proofs as a diverse genre of artistic practice. This paper will examine examples by David Hockney, Jasper Johns and Robert Motherwell as case studies that challenge the idea that 'cancelling' an image is necessarily an act of defacement. I argue that many cancellation proofs could be viewed as creative rather than destructive images, and that examples should be viewed as part of a creative process, rather than as a separate administrative function. By posing new ways of understanding cancellation in printmaking I hope to provide entry points for others to examine works within this overlooked field.
The purpose of cancellation
The tradition of cancelling matrices and creating cancellation proofs originates from the practice of producing prints in numbered limited editions. Until the mid-19th century, prints were typically issued in unlimited quantities according to demand. It was common for printing blocks, plates and other matrices to be used until they became worn out and could no longer yield quality impressions, and for degraded matrices to be re-worked and reinforced to make them last longer (Gilmour 7). Amongst other reasons, the shift towards artificially limiting editions arose as a way for publishers to make artist prints more desirable investments (Gilmour 7).
Primarily, cancellation proofs have been created to assure a buyer of the value and rarity of their purchase when buying from a limited edition. As Kenneth Tyler (2017) explains, "the concept for these proofs was for publishers to assure their customers that once the main printing element was defaced and a proof pulled to illustrate the act, more edition quality proofs could not be made." In theory, cancellation prints protect against deceptive practices where supplemental editions were produced at a later date, however there have been cases where cancelled matrices have been re-worked to disguise their defacement and then reprinted and introduced to the market (Gilmour 71-2).
Cancelling a matrix serves an important role in protecting the artist's intention against unauthorised reprints and posthumous editions. The issuing of such prints has often raised questions about authenticity and whether the artist's intent has been respected, particularly when there is a lack of clarity about whether an artist would have wanted their previously un-published matrix printed and distributed. In cases where the matrix has been cancelled the evidence of a cancellation proof can be instrumental in disambiguating the artist's wishes. 2 As such we can see that cancellation can be used by artists to ensure the quality of their legacy by maintaining the standard of works attributed to them.
References to cancellation proofs
The main reasons for the continued practice of cancelling a matrix, and for documenting its permanent alteration with a cancellation proof, are well documented. However, it is rare to find references to the visual qualities or individual significance of specific examples of cancellation proofs. References to cancellation proofs are usually succinct definitions of the practice in general, or descriptions of various process to create them. Such references are generally limited to glossaries of printmaking terms and books concerned with printmaking and print collecting.3 Understandably, such contexts are not ideal places to engage in discussions about the broader ideas and implications of defacing prints, or to investigate the qualities of particular examples.
The most common references to specific cancellation proofs are in documentation that records the size of an edition. Examples include worksheets created by print publishers and workshops that record when and how each impression from a matrix was created; catalogue records kept by institutions, collectors, dealers and others that detail the edition information for an impression in their holdings; catalogue raisonnés and other publications that provide a reference for the number and nature of all editioned prints and proofs created for specific works. In such documentation, the significance of individual cancellation proofs is their role in documenting the defacement or alteration of the matrix, signifying that no further impressions were, or could potentially be created and distributed following the completion of the edition. Although any extant cancellation proofs would be recorded, the information is treated like statistical data and images of the cancellation proofs are not provided. The focus is, understandably, on the editioned image, which has realised the artist's vision.
Cancellation proofs in museum collections
Cancellation proofs are so frequently created and documented, but so rarely seen. This gives cause to wonder: where are they all? The distribution of cancellation proofs is hard to account for, for many reasons. Firstly, the practice of keeping or selling these proofs varies by artist and publisher.4 It is difficult to establish how many would still be held by workshops or artists and their estates, and how many may have made their way onto the market. Online collection search tools reveal that some cancellation proofs are held in significant museum collections,5 however it is difficult to determine exactly how many, as this data is not always available or easily searchable, even in larger institutions.6
When museums do hold cancellation proofs in their collections, it is uncommon for many of these prints to have significant relationships to each other. Rarely are they conceived as objects that would be considered together as a group; it seems that most often they are acquired with regard to developing holdings of work by an individual artist. On occasion, cancellation proofs or re-prints from cancelled matrices, are acquired when they present a rare opportunity to purchase a work by a particular artist. More frequently, museums hold cancellation proofs because the proofs have been acquired as part of a larger archive or collection that contains preparatory works, variant proofs, editioned prints and other related material. For example, the NGA holds a small number of cancellation proofs in its Australian Print collection, which were acquired incidentally as part of a large archival acquisition of works by artists including Lionel Lindsay (NGA 83.570), Hertha Kluge-Pott (NGA 2014.580) and Murray Walker (NGA 2008.703.74).
Similarly, the cancellation proofs in the Tyler Collection came to the NGA as part of major acquisitions that included editioned prints, multiples, illustrated books, and paper works, along with experimental proofs, preparatory drawings, matrices and other printing elements, as well as candid photography and archival material from Tyler's workshops.7 Taken together, context offers insight into cancellation proof as they are situated within a comprehensive collection that reveals much about the printmaking processes in general, and different artists' approaches to printmaking in particular.
Looking at cancellation proofs
The fact that cancellation proofs are so rarely seen is understandable. While the editioned image represents a resolution of the artists intention, the cancellation proof is something that is created to fulfil the requirements of the publisher. While the aim of edition printing is to produce the same image identically a number of times, the purpose of the cancellation proof is to differ in an obvious way. As such, it might seem strange for an art museum to display something that ostensibly disfigures the work that the artist intended to present - particularly when collecting institutions go to great lengths to conserve and protect the artist's intention in the works of art for which they are custodians. However, most of the apparent reasons that cancellation proofs are not displayed is based on the assumption that they are not works of art in their own right, and that they were produced with destructive rather than creative intent.
There is great variety in the techniques of cancellation that artists and printers have employed. To some extent, this is guided by the printing methods used. In stone lithography, the nature of the medium dictates that generally the print will be cancelled by removing an area of the image by scraping, or removing with chemicals (Antreasian and Adams 114). For intaglio printing, common methods of cancellation include the incision of a cross or line across the image, or drilling holes into plates (Hayter, 147). Similar approaches are used to cancel relief printing blocks, however while cancellation marks subtract areas from a relief and planographic prints, marks are added to intaglio plates become part of the printed image. Though there may be limitations on the methods that are used, and cancellation of a matrix may on occasion be performed by workshop staff rather than the artist, it is nonetheless a practice that can leave itself open to different visual interpretations. (Tyler, 2017) As Tyler (2017) remembers, "[s]ome artists were more creative in their defacing, making the cancellation proof into a newly drawn image."
There is no homogenous type of cancellation across examples of cancellation proofs from the Tyler Collection. There are, however, commonalities which occur. Large crosses and strikes rigidly and definitively terminate figurative images by Altoon Sultan (NGA 2002.1.541.3)and Maurice Sendak (NGA 2002.1.1852), while in examples of abstract works like Kenneth Noland's Blush 1978 (NGA 2002.1.1309), the intervention of such gestures in the composition is not so visually destructive. A different approach is seen in Hardy Hanson's Vault for the deposit of justice 1965 (NGA 2002.1.1523.3), where a flurry of scratches undoes the meticulously planned and executed geometry and tonal gradation of the editioned image.
The cancellation proof for Claes Oldenburg's Ice bag 1970 (NGA 2002.1.370) shows erasure of areas of his sketchy drawings related to his Ice bag multiples, making it appear as if he was re-thinking the composition during its planning, rather than effacing the image to punctuate the conclusion of its production. In contrast with the obvious finality of other examples of cancellation, this work subverts assumptions about the creative process by ending with a suggestion of re-drafting.
The cancellation proof for Anni Albers' Triangulated intaglio I 1975 (NGA 2002.1.998) is a disquieting example where a jagged lines rip through the middle of the underlying image, jarring with the careful control of the carefully rendered system of triangles. The stark blackness of the cancelling marks that were scored deeply into the etching plate contrasts with the softer quality and tone of the dots, acting as a reminder of the composure and control required to translate her well-ordered geometric system onto the plate.
Due to the traditional purpose of cancellations, the cancellation mark is usually an obvious alteration to the edition. However, in some works it can be hard to detect the cancellation. This is especially the case when the print involves multi-layering or expressive gestures in the original work. For example, the scratched lines that cancel the photo-collage elements of Robert Rauschenberg's lithograph Test stone #5A 1967 (NGA 73.925) are not easily discerned from the scribbled line-work of the editioned image. In this case an inscription has been written in the image - "cancellation for Ken" - ostensibly for the purpose of establishing that the work is indeed 'cancelled.' That the marks of cancellation are incorporated within the aesthetic dynamic of the work of art suggests something about the ambiguities around the 'end' of a creative process: at times, it is so unclear where the process ends that it has to be made explicit.
Jasper Johns: cancellation as a creative and 'philosophical' act
Jasper Johns' cancellation proofs stand out as notable exceptions to the norms of the practice. By understanding and exploiting the conventions of the cancellation process, Johns turns what is usually a simple matter of record-keeping into a creative endeavour, challenging the notion that cancelling a matrix is a necessarily destructive act that deletes the artistic vision that an artist intends to present. Working within the accepted process for cancelling proofs he adopts the usual techniques and symbols - crosses, strikes, the word 'void' - as elements to add to his editioned compositions. As Tyler (2017) recalls, "Johns was the first and only artist I worked with that made multiple cancellation proofs that he laboured on as if making a monotype." Although none of Johns' cancellation proofs are held in the NGA collection, candid photography from his collaborations at Gemini GEL documents his creative method.
A small number of Jasper Johns' cancellation proofs have been shown in exhibitions and publications, which signals the importance of his exceptional approach.8 One of two cancellation proofs created for the work Figure 7 from his 1968 Color Numerals series was featured in the exhibition Jasper Johns Lithographs curated by Riva Castleman at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, in 1970. This print, which is illustrated in the exhibition catalogue, contains a thick strike that erases a horizontal line across the image, through the mouth of his photo-reproduction of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa. The word \'VOID\' is scratched beneath this mark. Due to the reversal that occurs when printing from a lithographic stone, it is clear that Johns scratched this word in reverse with the intention that it would be legible when printed. Reflecting on the contemplative and provocative approach adopted by Johns, Castleman (5) suggested that "[i]n choosing this image to illustrate the meaning of a cancellation proof, Johns presents us with [a] philosophical question: what is void?" Indeed, it is not clear that Johns has rendered the pre-existing work 'void.' The editioned image is a pastiche of familiar symbols and icons; by adding new layers with symbols that relate to the traditions of printmaking it seems that Johns has introduced new ideas rather than eradicating old ones.9 Nonetheless, Johns has fulfilled the requirements of cancellation - rendering the stone so it can no longer produce identical impressions of the editioned image - albeit in an unexpected way.
A similar approach is evident in a photograph documenting the cancellation of his print No 1969, where the artist has inscribed 'VOID' over the top of the word 'No' from the original composition. Again, the content of the editioned work of art and Johns' added cancellation gestures have an intriguing dynamic. In this case, the cancellation has caused a double negative - the word 'No' is declared 'void.' Or is it? Once more, Johns has pithily highlighted the ambiguity about how exactly the cancellation process changes the work of art it interacts with. As Tyler suggested, by continuing to work on the lithographic stone to create new variations it is as if the cancellation proofs that Johns created can be beheld as artworks in their own right. Indeed, Tyler (2017) remembers that many of the cancellation prints "became sought after by collectors and soon were sold." As such, Johns has also inverted the notion that the purpose of cancellation is to guarantee the value and rarity of an edition.
David Hockney: cancellation as continuation
Working within the same time period, David Hockney employed his own imaginative approach to cancelling matrices. In his cancellation proof for the three-colour lithograph A portrait of Rolf Nelson 1965/68 (NGA 73.1048) the black layer has been modified by Hockney to recompose the portrait in a more comical fashion. Some of Nelson's facial features have been erased from the lithographic plate, but Hockney has reinserted them in a cartoonish manner that shows the sitter reimagined with luscious ruby lips and long eyelashes. With a further adjustment of the matrix, Hockney has also adorned Nelson's shirt with a peace sign.
Another of Hockney's cancellation proofs that stands apart from tradition is Henry and Christopher 1973. The edition itself is unconventional as each impression has the same line drawing printed from lithographic stone, which is then modified with different hand-colouring in gouache. In some works from the edition, lithographic reproductions of Frank Stella's Black series 1967 are incorporated as collage elements. The NGA holds in its collection three impressions of this printed image: the right to print (RTP) proof (NGA 73.1042), 14/15 from the edition (NGA 73.1047), and the cancellation proof (NGA 73.1043). Each are distinctively different: the RTP includes a fragment from one of Stella's prints, which appears like a painting on the wall; through the doorway part of a palm tree in red against a blue background has been added with gouache, Henry's face and hands have been coloured red and his chair is painted green. Impression 14/15 has fewer additions: there is a red cross over Henry's face and an orange line connects both men by their wrists. In the cancellation proof, most of the printed image remains intact, but hand-colouring in red on the men's faces partly conceals where their facial features have been effaced from the matrix.
In most cases the cancellation is an aberration from the identically reproduced images of the edition, however, since the edition for Henry and Christopher is not uniform, close attention is required to notice the destructive element of the cancellation proof. The printed image does have a cross erased from it, but due to the sparseness of the line drawing that comprises the print this is not obvious at first glance - like the aforementioned Rauschenberg cancellation proof, an inscription in the image is what makes the alteration of the matrix explicit. Since the cancellation is not so simple to detect from this varied edition it is interesting to consider whether other works from the edition - such as Henry's crossed-out face in impression 14/15 - might stand out more obviously as an example of the artist defacing or deleting elements of the printed image. As well as subverting the standard of edition prints being identical, here Hockney also undermines the conventions of cancellation proofs, challenging the notion of there being a static image to 'cancel.'
Robert Motherwell: cancellation as conclusion of a process
Cancellation proofs are particularly compelling within the context of the Tyler Collection because the variety and depth of material allows its visitors to see the whole process of creating prints at Tyler's workshops. From sketches, ink samples, trial proofs, photography and worksheets that record the process, the editioned works, through to conclusion with the cancelled matrix and cancellation proof, the breadth of these holdings allow for a much richer understanding of the development of the image than is possible when editioned works are viewed in isolation. Robert Motherwell's work provides a strong example of how unseen aspects of the creative process can be revealed through this unique context.
Motherwell was one of few Abstract Expressionist artists who were able to translate the gestural, emotive qualities of the style into painterly prints that feel spontaneous, fresh and evocative. For Motherwell, printmaking introduced a type of free expression that could not be achieved in painting. The processes and techniques of printmaking meant that his images and gestures could be repeated in multiple, allowing him to freely experiment with different combinations of colours and layering, and to revise and recycle his compositions (Kinsman). The hundreds of variant proofs in the NGA Tyler Collection attest to this process of revision and exploration. For example, the process for creating Black rumble is documented in the NGA collection with 21 different experimental proofs for the work (NGA 2002.1.15.1-23),which bear witness to the artist's vacillations and thought processes leading up to the creation of the final edition. In these examples, we see the artist working to achieve a vision by re-composing printed and collage elements and experimenting with numerous different colour-ways. In such a context, edition prints and cancellation proofs mark the point where, for some indescribable reason, the artist's ambition had finally been achieved. From an outside perspective, there is something mystifying about the way an artist instinctively knows, after so many variations and experiments, that a work is finally resolved and requires no further adjustment. Motherwell himself has expressed the awe such realisation brings: "[w]hen the edition is finally o.k., and goes to press and you see the first fresh print, it is with ecstasy. All struggle has vanished. There is a virgin birth, fresh and perfect, like Venus arising from the sea" (qtd. in Kinsman).
While the creation of the edition does suggest the creative process has concluded and a point of no return has been reached, it is not uncommon for artists to continue re-working a matrix and issuing one or more variant state editions. For example, Motherwell issued El general 1979 (NGA 2002.1.1838) and El general, state I 1980 (NGA 2002.1.317.1) amongst others as separate editions. As such, it is particularly powerful that the cancellation marks a different conclusion, indicating that the creative urge has been satisfied and the artist no longer desires further modifications or variations for this work.
When cancelling a complex multimedia print, the practice at Tyler's workshops was for a printer to select one significant matrix to deface and the other printing elements would remain intact for the production of the cancellation proof (Tyler, 2017). Like aforementioned examples, the brushstrokes that 'cancel' Black rumble and others from the Untitled 1980 cycle (NGA 2002.1.341, 2002.1.343, 2002.1.346) could be mistaken as intended elements of the gestural compositions. However, what is especially intriguing about examples such as Untitled A is the way that the cancellation stroke removes areas of the composition serves to excavate and reveal the layering process that was used to build up the variety of blacks in different textural and tonal combination. Like many works in Motherwell's broader oeuvre, these prints celebrate the versatility and emotive power of the colour black. By incorporating layers of different types of black, the different tones and qualities of the ink making the surface appear richly textured. Interestingly, the subtraction of a relatively small area of colour caused by cancellation reveals some of this complex layering process.
By engaging in visual analysis with a variety of examples from the Tyler Collection I have shown how examples of the cancellation process from Johns, Hockney and Motherwell can be viewed as challenges to the perception of cancellation proofs as merely commercial devices. In light of the examples I have presented, the examination of cancellation proofs reveals a creative process, one that continues beyond the printing of an edition. In Johns, we see an inversion of the idea of cancellation: the very act of voiding a work can be a creative act. In Hockney, the dynamism of his work undermines the notion of there being a static object to 'cancel.' In the example of Motherwell, his cancellation proofs provide insight into the artist's process, especially when viewed alongside trial proofs that reveal the extended experimental process he used to achieve his vision. I hope to have brought attention to cancellation proofs as a neglected subject for further visual analysis. The way that artists have challenged conceptions of cancellation practices deserves closer inspection because it can reveal important facets of the creative process, indeed it can even question the concept of artistic finality.
A selection of David Hockney's cancellation proofs were displayed at the National Gallery of Australia in conjunction with the exhibition David Hockney prints which ran from 11 November 2017 - 27 May 2018.
On 13 March 2018 Alice Desmond presented and discussed a selection of cancellation proofs in the National Gallery of Australia's Collection Study Room: www.nga.gov.au/whatson.
Albers, Anni. Triangulated intaglio I, cancellation proof. 1975, etching on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Antreasian, Garo Z., and Clinton Adams. The Tamarind Book of Lithography: Art and Techniques. Los Angeles: Tamarind Lithography Workshop, 1971.
Castleman, Riva. Jasper Johns Lithographs - an Exhibition Organised by the Museum of Modern Art, New York. Riva Castleman, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1970. p.7. PDF. 21 April 2017.
Gilmour, Pat. Understanding Prints: A Contemporary Guide. London: Waddington Galleries, 1979.
Hayter, Stanley William. About Prints. London: Oxford University Press, 1962.
Heller, Jules. Printmaking Today: A Studio Handbook. 2. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.
Hanson, Hardy. Vault for the deposit of justice, cancellation proof. 1965, lithograph on shaped paper. National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search. Web. 1 June 2017.
Hockney, David. Henry and Christopher, 14/15. 1973, lithograph, hand colouring on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Hockney, David. Henry and Christopher, cancellation proof. 1973, lithograph, hand colouring on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Hockney, David. Henry and Christopher, right to print proof. 1973, lithograph, hand colouring, collage on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Hockney, David. A portrait of Rolf Nelson, cancellation proof. 1965/68, colour lithograph and watercolour on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Johns, Jasper. Figure 7 from the Color numerals series, cancellation proof. 1969, colour lithograph on paper, Jasper Johns Lithographs - an Exhibition Organised by the Museum of Modern Art, New York. Riva Castleman, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1970. p.7. PDF. 21 April 2017.
Kinsman, Jane. 'Robert Motherwell: At Five in the Afternoon.' National Gallery of Australia. 2014. June 14, 2017. Web
Kluge-Pott, Hertha. Lavender page, cancellation proof. 1998, drypoint on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Lambert, Susan. Prints: Art and Techniques. London: V&A Publications, 2001.
Legge, Kate. 'Into the Light: The Lost Etchings of Arthur Streeton.' The Weekend Australian. 26 November 2016.Web. 5 May 2017.
Lindsay, Lionel. Old Essex Street from George Street, Sydney, cancellation proof. 1911, etching, drypoint, foul-biting on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Lubliner, Malcolm. Cancelled lithographic stone for Jasper Johns' lithograph, 'Figure 7', Gemini G.E.L., Los Angeles, 1969. 1969, photograph. National Gallery of Australia, Canberra.
Lubliner, Malcolm. Kenneth Tyler pulling the cancellation proof for No with Jasper Johns observing, Gemini G.E.L., Los Angeles, 1969. 1969, photograph. National Gallery of Australia, Canberra.
Motherwell, Robert. 21 preparatory proofs for Black rumble. 1982-83, colour lithograph, collage on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Motherwell, Robert. Black rumble. 1985, colour lithograph on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Motherwell, Robert. Black rumble, cancellation proof. 1985, colour lithograph on paper National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Motherwell, Robert. El general. 1979, lithograph on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Motherwell, Robert. El general, state I. 1980, lithograph on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Motherwell, Robert. Untitled A. 1980, lithograph on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Motherwell, Robert. Untitled B. 1980, lithograph on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Motherwell, Robert. Untitled C. 1980, lithograph on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
National Gallery of Art. 'States and Variations: Prints by Jasper Johns'. 2007. PDF. 7 June 2017.
Noland, Kenneth. Blush, cancellation proof. 1978, colour lithograph on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Oldenburg, Claes. Ice bag, cancellation proof. 1970, lithograph on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Rauschenberg, Robert. Test stone #5A, cancellation proof. 1967, colour lithograph on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Sendak, Maurice. Faithful Nutcracker, cancellation proof. 1984, lithograph on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Sultan, Altoon. House and hill, North Island, New Zealand, cancellation proof. 1990, drypoint on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search, Web. 1 June 2017.
Turner, Silvie, ed. A Printmaker's Handbook. London: Estamp, 1989.
Tyler, Kenneth. 'Glossary'. Kenneth Tyler printmaking collection. 1987. Web. 20 June 2017.
Tyler, Kenneth. 'Cancellation Proofs.' Received by Alice Desmond, 30 May 2017.
Walker, Murray. Benjamin at play, cancellation proof. 1966, woodcut on paper, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. NGA collection search (NGA 2008.703.74), Web. 1 June 2017.
Weitman, Wendy. 'Jasper Johns: Process and Printmaking January 25 - March 29, 1998'. Museum of Modern Art. 1996. PDF. 7 May 2017.
List of images
- Rauschenberg, Robert. Test stone #5A, cancellation proof.
- Cancelled lithographic stone for Jasper Johns' lithograph, 'Figure 7', Gemini G.E.L., Los Angeles, 1969.
- Kenneth Tyler pulling the cancellation proof for No with Jasper Johns observing, Gemini G.E.L., Los Angeles, 1969.
- Cancellation proofs for David Hockney’s Henry and Christopher 1967 and A portrait of Rolf Nelson 1965/68 on display at National Gallery of Australia, Canberra, 2017.
- Robert Motherwell, Black rumble, cancellation proof 1984, colour lithograph. National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. Gift of Kenneth Tyler, 2002 © Dedalus Foundation, Inc./VAGA.
- A glossary of printmaking terms is available at the Nation Gallery of Australia's Kenneth Tyler Collection website. ↩
- Recently there has been controversy regarding the printing of previously unpublished plates by Arthur Streeton. In an article in The Weekend Australian Magazine the lack of clarity about the artist's intention for the plates are discussed. Sotheby's Geoffrey Smith argues that because the plates were not editioned and subsequently destroyed, as was the standard practice of the time, they are comparable to sketches or other preparatory material rather than resolved works. (Legge) ↩
- Some examples include Antreasian and Adams; Gilmour; Turner. ↩
- In a recent email Kenneth Tyler stated "My policy was to give the cancellation proof to the artist, if I didn't give it to a museum." ↩
- Notable examples include National Gallery of Art, Washington; Museum of Modern Art, New York; Walker Art Center, Minneapolis. ↩
- For example, a keyword search for 'cancellation proof' on the National Gallery of Victoria collection search website returns 949 results. This seems to include all records that have either 'cancellation' or 'proof' anywhere in the online record for an object. A search for 'proof' returns 348 results; a search for 'cancellation' returns 2 results: 1 is a cancellation proof, the other has only recorded that a cancellation proof was created for the edition that the work is from. It is not possible to limit this search by impression type. This example is fairly typical of the type of searching that is available on art museum websites. ↩
- Further information on the history of the NGA's Tyler Collection is available at their webiste. ↩
- As well as the MoMA exhibition mentioned in this paragraph, Johns' cancellation proofs have been referred to in Weitman, 'Jasper Johns: Process and Printmaking' and National Gallery of Art. 'States and Variations'. ↩
- Further demonstrating Johns' interest in extending images beyond a single iteration, it is notable that the lithographic stones used for the Color numeral series were previously used for his 1968 Black numeral series, which rendered the same images in black ink. ↩