Talk:Decalcomania

Untitled

I don't know what 24.168.92.117 means by "vaild nor historical evidence to prove his, 'inventions'", but see for example http://www.freewebs.com/genovese/parent%20direct/Investigations1.html . Is it the existence of photographic decalcomanias 24.168.92.117 is debating or Richard Genovese's invention of the method? --Daniel C. Boyer 23:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Decalcomania was not originated in the 1930s as noted in the main article and did not begin as a surrealist technique, though it may certainly have been taken up by the surrealists as described. Writing in 1929, a US army officer describes a trip to Delmonico's restaurant in New York. He eats in a room with "a bewitching wallpaper, with small, gaily colored pictures, no two alike, applied after the manner of decalcomania." (See Lately Thomas, Delmonico's, Houghton Mifflin 1967).

Further research reveals an article "Decalcomania" (Harper's Bazaar, April 4, 1868, 1, 23) suggesting an even earlier, Russian origin for this technique.

Proposed Merge

I'm against a merge. Decal and decalcomania have distinct usage (e.g. see the Wiktionary entry). --Kkmurray 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Decalcomania is definitely distinct from "decal" in general. I added a museum link that explains it as a design movement Fingal 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Decalcomania & Lithography

Hi. Is there a difference between these two? They seem so similar as to suggest this is where a merger is needed. ThanxTheriac 17:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusion between fine art technique and industrial reproduction method

The above comments suggest there is ongoing confusion between the art technique which produces a single, unique image, and the industrial method which is used to produce many copies of an image. This is also shown in the following exchange from my talk page:

Apologies, I just restored a link in the Decalcomania article, but didn't leave a proper comment. I wanted to suggest that the museum article link is more appropriately about the decalcomania/industrial transfers early design movement, as opposed to decals in general. Fingal 23:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange, to me it seemed a much more appropriate link for Decal than Decalcomania. The latter article is pretty much about the technique to produce a one-of-a-kind result, especially in fine art. This is pretty much the opposite of the industrial printing technique of producing many copies of a graphic, i.e. producing 'decals' or 'transfers'. The museum link is pretty much about the history of that industrial technique in Canada, and thus seems more appropriate for Decal. I think I'll copy this discussion to the Decalcomania talk page. -R. S. Shaw 03:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Both usages of decalcomania involve transferring something (hence the word, from the French for 'to transfer'), but refer to different objects of transfer. In the industrial case, the primary transfer meant is that of an already prepared image on a special surface (the decal) to some object (such as a model or tableware). In the fine art case, the transfer seems generally to be of wet pigment (such as fingerpaint) without finished form onto a normal art surface such as paper, in order to create a new image, one that is not a copy of an existing image. The nature of the image thus formed is highly dependent on the exact manner in which the actual transfer happens (at least so I have gathered from poking about a bit). This is different from the use of a decal, where the transfer process produces the same image each time, with only minor variations such as crooked alignment on the object.

I think there need to be separate articles on these two meanings since their commonality is mostly limited to the name, not their natures. There should be some clarification and cross reference in each article, and maybe their needs to be a disambiguation article also. -R. S. Shaw 03:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Needs a picture

File:Le revolver std.jpg

Decalcomania??

I found this on Commons by searching "Decalcomania", but I don't know if it's an example or not. -- stillnotelf is invisible 18:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Me neither, unfortunately. Yes, a picture or illustration would be very cool! Maikel (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing key details

The article says that decalomania is a technique, and says what it's for, but doesn't seem to say what the technique actually is, i.e. how it's done. That seems like one of the most important pieces of information this article should contain. I haven't added it myself because I don't know the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.68 (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Tangential content

The following content tangential to the specific topic of this page (which actually belongs, if anywhere, at the decal page) has been relocated here this date:

==Versions==

In the 1950s and early 1960s, King Features Syndicate marketed a set of decalcomanias bearing full-color pictures of characters from its comic strips, including Flash Gordon, the Katzenjammer Kids, and Dagwood Bumstead. Intended for young children who might have difficulty pronouncing or reading the word "decalcomanias", these transfers were marketed as "Cockamamies", a deliberate mispronunciation. The term "cockamamy" or "cockamamie" has entered the English language with various slang meanings, usually denoting something that is wacky, strange or unusual. However, the expression "cockamamie" is attested by 1946 and reportedly as early as the 1920s.

It does not deal with the fine art transfer method of decalomania, and even vis-a-vis the pedestrian "decal" deals more with the etymology of the word "cockamamie" than establishing it in any way an exceptional example of the production or use of the mass-produced water-released "sticker" (which it is not, until otherwise substantiated). Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Non-notable example comprises majority of "Artists" section

Under the heading "Artists", the final paragraph begins "American visual artist Perry Hall has created hundreds of paintings solely through the use of decalcomania..." and continues in this vein for another 85 words (the remainder of the paragraph). Unfortunately, Mr. Hill does not seem to satisfy WP:N. The sources cited are his own website (rather than a second-party) and an art blog. I'm not convinced that the paragraph is needed at all, and given that the subject of it fails WP:N, it should probably simply be removed. Bricology (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)