A Short History of the Mezzotint
Mezzotint is one of the oldest printing techniques. It is a time consuming deductive method, similar to linocut in that the artist leaves the areas that he wants to print dark. It can produce the most delicate of gray tones and the smoothest tonal transitions from light to dark or dark to light. It was the printing method of choice by publishers and clients during the 17th and 18th centuries and is still the most versatile and beautiful of the old techniques.
The discovery of the technique of mezzotint is attributed to Ludwig von Siegen who was born In Utrecht in the year 1609. He was educated at the Hesse-Kassel Ritterkollegium between 1621 and 1626 and received the education and military training usually reserved for the upper classes of people. During the eleven years after finishing his education his travels took him to France, Holland and Westphalia.
In 1639 at the age of thirty Ludwig returned to Hesse-Kassel. The Landgrave William V died before Ludwig’s return and Amelia Elizabeth was appointed as Landgravine on behalf of her son William VI, who was to inherit the position of Landgrave on becoming of age. Presenting himself to the Landgravine with a letter from his father requesting a position at court von Siegen was appointed kammerjunker to William VI. A kammerjunker acts as a personal aide, bodyguard and companion to a nobleman. This position gave Ludwig the opportunity to associate freely with people from the higher social circles and carried a degree of honor and respect.
Because of difficulties at court and the oppressive atmosphere of religious intolerance in Hesse-Kassel Ludwig moved to Amsterdam in 1641. Having been trained in the arts at the Ritterkollegium he could not have helped being influenced by the cosmopolitan atmosphere of a city like Amsterdam. Featuring some of the world’s best universities, a liberal democratic government and a rich economy Amsterdam was a haven for artists and craftsmen of all disciplines. It was the publishing capital of the world and was known for its freedom of the press. It is here that Ludwig von Siegen tried to find an outlet for his artistic abilities. He was certainly influenced by the many publications being circulated at that time, among which were most probably Rembrandt’s drypoints.
During this time the Landgravine Emelia Elizabeth continued to support Ludwig in spite of religious differences. Ludwig produced the landgravine’s portrait in different mediums in return. In 1642 he produced an original print of a drawing he had done of her while still in her employ. He sent it to William VI with the following description:
“There is not a single engraver, or artist of any kind who can account for, or guess how this is done, for, as Your Highness well knows, only three methods of work are recognized in engraving viz. 1st, engraving or cutting, 2nd, biting with acid or etching, 3rd, a method very little used, executed in small dots made with punches, but which is difficult and so arduous that it is seldom practiced. My method is quite different from any of these although one notices small dots and not a single line: and if in some parts the work seems to be done in hatching, it is not withstanding, entirely dotted, which I would not wish to hide from Your Highness, who is so well versed in Art”.
From this print of Emelia Elizabeth it is seen that Ludwig von Siegen worked in additive and deductive methods simultaneously. He used mostly roulettes and some drypoint additively and made corrections and lightened areas with burnishers and scrapers deductively. But the most interesting feature of this print is that it does contain some of the characteristic rows of dots that can only be made by a chisel-like tool with a serrated blade. This print is the first to be known to use the mezzotint method although there was no name for it at the time.
After producing a number of well executed portraits of nobility, von Siegen resumed a military career in 1644. From 1644 to 1654 no prints exist to suggest that he shared his new process with other artists. In 1654 new prints appeared by Ludwig showing his new technique.
Around this time Ludwig von Siegen may have met Prince Rupert the nephew of Charles I of England. There has always been a debate over whether von Siegen and Prince Rupert ever met. Many historians believe that Prince Rupert was far to the south and east of Brussels around 1654. But there is a bit of evidence toward a meeting if the description of the discovery of mezzotint in John Evelyn’s papers at Christ Church College in Oxford is to be believed. In it Prince Rupert states that a soldier in Germany showed him with his own hands the new technique. He thought of it while noticing one morning the texture that the moisture had created on the barrel of his gun and devised a way to reproduce it on copper to exceed all other methods of engraving.
There are other possibilities to account for a meeting between Ludwig and Prince Rupert. Prince Rupert visited Emperor Ferdinand III in Vienna in 1654, and von Siegen produced his portrait of Emperor Ferdinand III in that same year and may have presented it at court. Other evidences are von Siegen engraved a portrait of Prince Rupert’s mother, Elizabeth of Bohemia and both knew the Prince’s Cousin William VI. In 1655 Prince Rupert visited William VI in Hesse-Kassel and would surely have seen von Siegen’s prints there.
For many years it was thought that Prince Rupert was the discoverer of mezzotint. Publications from the time mention only the Prince as working in the mezzotint method and it was assumed that he initiated the technique.
Prince Rupert made many contributions to the technique of mezzotint. He used the same tools as von Siegen but in a more deductive manner. He grounded larger areas with the roulettes and then used his burnishers and scrapers extensively to create the image. As a man of science Prince Rupert experimented with the technique and also with producing new tools for creating denser and more even textures.
At this time other artists also began to use the new technique of mezzotint. In 1656 Theodore Casper von Furstenberg experimented with mezzotint and in 1658 Flemish painter Jan Thomas of Ypres. Also around this time Wallerant Vaillant a French painter and etcher was hired by Prince Rupert to assist with his engravings and probably contributed to the process of developing and refining the mezzotint rocker.
Later, in 1662 Vaillant moved to Amsterdam and became a successful mezzotint engraver and publisher helping establish and contributing to a healthy community of Dutch mezzotint engravers later known as the ‘Dutch School of Mezzotint.
This group included Abraham Blooteling who was born in Amsterdam around 1634. Blooteling was a successful line engraver who began making mezzotints after contact with Baron von Furstenberg and probably Wallerant Vaillant.
In 1672 or 1673 Blooteling arrived in England after escaping from the turmoil in Holland created by invading French troops. Shortly afterward he began producing mezzotints with far superior and refined tonal gradations. This has been attributed to his contact with Prince Rupert in England and their development of what came to be known as the modern mezzotint rocker. A new improved rocker and new, more thourough grounding techniques greatly improved mezzotint quality. The new tools and techniques allowed artists to work totally deductively on well grounded plates. These developments in turn separated the grounding process from the creative process and the time consuming grounding could be left to assistants.
The modern mezzotint was finally born and its advantages were evident. Corrections were easier to make and worn plates could be reworked. Images could now be rendered with form, texture and light and exact likenesses could be achieved with continuous tone.
As Ludwig von Siegen stated the techniques available for producing multiples at the time were engraving, etching and stipple engraving. We must also take into account that Rembrandt was using the dry-point technique. Mezzotint while time consuming was still faster than line engraving. Line engravings could take years to complete and with timely subjects like portraits this is a definite disadvantage. With historical subjects line engraving had a strong appeal to publishers because they could be printed in larger editions and had a wider public appeal. Line engraving could not however match the soft subtle transitions in tonal values that are inherent to mezzotint. Etching could not create the finely graduated gray tones and rich blacks. Dry-point plates are very fragile and the number of good prints that can be taken from them is very limited. The rapid popularity of mezzotint, as often is the case had many reasons. Its commercial appeal was an important factor. It opened broader possibilities for publishers, it gave a superior product that was easily marketable, and it appealed to public tastes.
As other techniques developed mezzotint maintained its status as the best reproductive method. Aquatint which Jean Baptiste le Prince is known to have invented in 1768 did not pose a serious threat to the status or industry of mezzotint because of the difficulty in creating smooth tonal changes. It was utilized more as a medium for reproducing sketches and sport scenes and adding color to caricatures and satirical prints. Soft-ground etching and the ‘crayon manner’ were tonal methods used at the time and in the hands of talented people, at times could produce well gradated tones. These two techniques however were best suited for reproducing drawings. Stipple engraving was the most serious threat to mezzotint. Created by building up the density of small dots this method could produce a wide range of tonal values with relative ease. Since these tones could be built up in stages these prints could be mass produced by a number of people working on the same plate. But once again this is an additive manner and is different than mezzotint. In the end stipple engraving cannot produce the very subtlest tones as can mezzotint because by rocking the mezzotint plate one produces burrs as well as holes in the surface so the dots which are more associated with stipple engraving are not so pronounced.
Mezzotint survived these technical challenges intact. In fact mezzotint held a solid place in the eighteenth century marketplace. The artistic trends and social tendencies of the time contributed to the popularity of mezzotint. The fashionable large full length portraits of the later part of the century were perfect for the convincing textures mezzotint could provide. Portraits were everywhere. People commissioned portraits for gifts, for publicizing oneself as a politician or artist and mezzotint thus also became a political tool. Painters such as Sir Joshua Reynolds sometimes sent paintings to be engraved in mezzotint before delivery if he thought the subject would be popular.
Mezzotint was also a tool to bring news to Europe of the strange discoveries in the Americas and elsewhere during the expansion of the British Empire. Mezzotint was used to illustrate the many new and unique peoples, plants and animals. Old masters paintings were reproduced to an expanding middle class market. Increased leisure time created a demand for prints with subjects idealizing country cottages and a life closer to nature. Sporting scenes were popular.
In the late 1700’s mezzotint was the most popular reproductive technique. It was used for everything. It was the best method for producing high quality tonal values and it was sound economically. It was faster than engraving and produced better results. But its reputation relied almost entirely on its reproductive capabilities. As more people used mezzotint for portraits and public announcements more people were exposed to the realistic qualities that could be achieved. This in turn created more demand for mezzotints for book illustrations, reproduction of paintings and political notices. Mezzotint was the method of choice for quality illustration. Why did mezzotint fall into disuse?
The first encroachment into the popularity of mezzotint came from an entirely different technical area. Lithography was invented by Aloys Senefelder in 1798. This planographic method had definite economic advantages over mezzotint. The printing was faster. A large (50x70cm) mezzotint could take up to one half hour to make one print. A lithograph approximately the same size only takes a few minutes. The economic advantage is evident. In 1818 zinc lithographic printing plates were developed and the printing was made even easier. Since printing was faster it was easier to produce complicated multi-color prints with lithography.
The most critical challenge to mezzotint came from yet another technical area that was developing by leaps and bounds, the photographic processes. Englishman Fox Talbot was granted a patent for photogravure in 1858. This definitely was the most serious threat to mezzotint. It could reproduce exact images of paintings or portraits very quickly. Sizes could be adapted to any proportional format. In only twenty years, by 1879 photogravure was the most popular reproductive method. Not only was it efficient but it freed the publishers from having to pay the high engravers fees, and many plates could be made from one negative so editions became virtually unlimited. Artists and publishers were also freed from having to deal with engravers interpretations of subjects and their sometimes surly attitudes.
Photography and thus photogravure eliminated the need for portrait painters and could be used much more easily for family portraits. With burning and dodging techniques negatives could be doctored leaving out unsightly details and imperfections so the family portrait was always perfect.
Another development that was critical to mezzotint was the Industrial Revolution which changed the apprenticeship system. Many mezzotint engravers had to start rocking their own plates taking time from the actual creative work and making production more difficult and time consuming. So, through disuse many of the techniques for working on copper plates were slowly being lost. At first the Industrial Revolution contributed to the growth of the mezzotint industry but in the end it accelerated the demise of this once popular technique. The Industrial Revolution’s focus on economic efficiency and production pushed the beautiful but difficult and time consuming mezzotint aside. By the late 1800’s very few people other than artists had a need for mezzotint.
There was an abundance of printmaking techniques at the end of the nineteenth century and inevitably artists developed favorites. Some liked the controlled expressiveness of the engraved line; others preferred the freedom of drawing on a stone or the precision of the etched line. James McNeil Whistler and Sir Francis Haden were experimenting with dry-point and etching. The impressionists also were drawn to printmaking. The absence of trained teachers and craftsmen led artists to teach themselves technique and method in their constant search for individual style and creativeness.
Mezzotint was seldom used during the second half of the 19th century. Not many people knew how to make mezzotints and there was a danger of the technique being lost. Due to a few key people the method of mezzotint began a slow and arduous revival. First among them should be mentioned Sir Frank Short, born in England in 1857. After being fascinated with mezzotints at the National Gallery of Art he decided to begin making mezzotints. He was a prolific artist. Sir Frank Short eventually completed J.M.W. Turner’s plan to issue a series of one hundred landscapes in mezzotint. He also produced forty five prints based on the images of Constable, Turner and Peter de Wint.
Sir Frank Short’s mezzotint work is commendable to say the least but his technical and informational dissemination are also important in the revival of mezzotint. He personally rediscovered many of the old methods and found ways to deal with newer technology such as the hammered metal plates that were being produced which tended to be softer that the older variety.
Another important person in the revival of mezzotint was Arlent Edwards who was born in Somerset, England in 1862. Arlent Edwards learned mezzotint from a few of the late nineteenth century reproductive engravers. His subject matter was neoclassic in style and while his prints do not have great public appeal now they were very much appreciated during his lifetime. In 1890 Arlent moved to the United States where he continued producing mezzotints and mastering his revived method of printing multiple colors from one plate. He printed all his own work and destroyed the plates after a set number of impressions.
During the careers of Sir Frank Short and Arlent Edwards mezzotint was in a state of hibernation kept alive only through the efforts of these men and a few others. Very few artists knew how to make mezzotints at this time. The first half of the twentieth century saw a growing interest in printmaking and some people were becoming aware of the beautiful old mezzotints and began to seek information on this obscure technique. A small number of artists including M.C. Escher and Joseph Pennel at first and later Mario Avati and Yozo Hamaguchi began to breathe new life into this almost forgotten technique and it wasn’t until about 1960 that its popularity began to rise.
During the 1960’s and 1970’s few artists were working in mezzotint but it was still seen, although infrequently. Public infatuation with modern science at the time was not conducive to a slow time consuming technique. Life was supposed to be faster and easier. The development of computers was to help solve all of life’s daily problems and give people more time to relax and enjoy. And many artists saw the home computer as a threat to their old technique’s unique mode of expression. But in retrospect the computer has helped awaken a renewed interest in older techniques of printmaking by giving people more time to explore and look for the unusual.
While many artists are turning to the computer as a new mode of expression many of these same people are learning to appreciate a creative method that is entirely done by hand and takes enough time and effort that the creator begins to feel that he is really expressing part of himself in his work. With computer generated imagery there is always a program between the artist and the final product. Photoshop, CorelDraw, there are many imaging programs available. In a way they limit the artist, they only allow the artist certain options, certain choices of how to make a line or how to arrange a composition. Granted these choices are vast one still must work within the limitations of the programs.
Computer artists would argue that the pencil is a limitation also. But it is a physical limitation that doesn’t limit the imagination. An artist does not look to a pencil to see what options he has to make lines or create compositions or graduate tones. The artist is free to choose how to do all these things. There is no list of options to choose from and the artist must think creatively and find his own identity and the solutions to the challenges that his work creates.
Mezzotint is not without limitations. First of all one has to rock a plate. Many find this limitation unsurpassable and these people choose not to make mezzotints. But there are many people worldwide who have made mezzotints. Any serious student of printmaking has tried mezzotint. The number of artists who work only in mezzotint is very small but seems to be growing. From the early 1970’s the number of mezzotint artists has grown from a handful to a considerable number when one thinks of the late 1800’s when almost no one was making mezzotints.
Another interesting aspect of mezzotint is that the tools have not undergone drastic changes. Today’s mezzotint rocker is basically the same as the ones developed and used by Prince Rupert and Wallerant Vaillant in the late 1600’s. Metallurgy has changed and the quality of the rockers made today is better because of this. Scrapers and burnishers have also improved because of modern steel making methods but the design of these tools has stayed the same.
Many artists make their own tools. They use steel blanks and form and sharpen them to the shapes that they find most comfortable. Artists today also adapt other materials to mezzotint. Different grades of steel wool can be used to modify plate texture and even give slight plate tone. Carborundum papers can be used to lighten areas or smooth out delicate plate tones. Sharpening stones formed into specific shapes can be used on grounded plates to create a chalk like effect. Only the imagination limits the ways a mezzotint ground can be modified. The mezzotints produced today have a wider range of subject matter and creative intent than mezzotints of 150 years ago.
It is safe to say that mezzotint has made a successful comeback to popularity. From its beginning in 1642 mezzotint has been a unique method of creating a printable image. The history of mezzotint is also very interesting with its close connection to business, politics, publishing and the Industrial Revolution. Its rise and fall in popularity do not reflect the public interest in prints and printmaking but do reflect artistic interest in mezzotint as an art form and not only a reproductive method. Mezzotint still enjoys respect as a difficult technique and also as a method that allows the artist to show his creative skills to the utmost degree.
Mezzotint has come full circle, from its discovery in 1642, to ultimate popularity, to almost complete disuse and then to rediscovery in the late 1800’s. Mezzotint seems to have survived its most serious challenge to date, the advent of the computer. It is still a time consuming, difficult technique. But it still can be beautiful and is still unique.
Bibliography:
Goodwin, Gordon, British Mezzotinters, James Mc Ardell, London, 1903
Wax Carol, Mezzotint – History and Technique, Published by Harry N. Abrams, Inc. New York, 1990