Photography
Photography and the subsequent development of the halftone, as developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, enabled the creation of cheaper printing through photomechanical processes. Fine art printmaking became more diversified as new techniques were introduced and accepted, and this development has continued with inkjet.
Ink jet certainly has re-inforced the link between traditional fine art printmaking and art photography to a point where the two blend.

The photographic origin of many of the digital prints reflects the high level of interest amongst photographers in Giclée processes being used to work in the darkroom and manipulate their images. In the early 1960's Jerry N. Uelsmann created techniques for blending seamlessly photographic images in the darkroom, and the same effects can now be achieved by using Photoshop in the computer. However, the extraordinary control digital methods offer far surpasses traditional darkroom techniques for negative and print manipulation. Scanned photographs can be edited, partly masked, transformed, collaged, layered or otherwise combined.

More Advantages
Another advantage with digital technique is the possibility of enlarging photo negatives, eliminating problems with dust spots, loss of information in translation through two generations of film images or difficulty in controlling the contrast and density range of the final negative.

With inkjet printing, the image forming process and the paper it is printed on are, for the first time, functionally separated. Photographers are now able to make prints on virtually any absorbent material in variable sizes that can be fed through the printer.

Some viewers expect a photograph to be a direct representation of an object or event. Is it still a photograph when it is manipulated, either in the darkroom or by the use of a computer? John Isaac claims:

In my view the artist's intention is the major issue to whether an artwork is a photograph or not. As Stephen Shore says: 'I regard what I do as 'art', and don't draw a distinction between photography and painting.'

Painting
Digital painting applications, for example Corel Painter and Pixel Paint Pro make it possible to use a mouse or a stylus for freehand drawing and painting. A program like Painter is designed to reproduce, in great detail, effects associated with natural media such as watercolour, pastels, pencil and charcoal. With the proper surface treatment, it is possible to paint with oil or acrylic on top of the printed image to produce a new individual 'mixed media' piece - a digital painting as Dorothy Simpson Krause calls it. Helen Golden often alters the printed surface with traditional media like acrylic paint or coloured pencils, and calls her 'hybrid creative product mixed media 'tradigital' work'.

A painting, formerly unique and one of a kind, can now be reproduced by using digital print and then the digitised painting can be exhibited on a virtual web-gallery, opening up a broader audience and market for the artist. In his upcoming book 'Painting and the Digital Adventure' James Faure-Walker describes the immense possibilities of digital technology:

He further argues about the convenience of digital painting: the hours spent preparing canvases, mixing paint, washing brushes, waiting for paint layers to dry, could be spent on the essential creative matters.

The question arises whether digital painting on canvas can be regarded as painting? Works by artists who employed non-traditional tools, materials and methods, are still addressed as 'paintings'. If it is a painting when John Hoyland splashes the paint on a canvas, Peter Blake uses gloss house painting, Roy Lichtenstein uses Ben Day dots and Andy Warhol uses stencils, then it can be argued that artwork 'painted with pixels' using digital print technology also can be considered a 'painting'. The Museum of Modern Art would regard an inkjet print as a painting 'in the same sense that a Warhol screenprint on canvas is considered a painting'. According to Lambert, inkjet prints are also defined as a stencil process, supporting this view.

Gerard Hemsworth's opinion is:

ePic Digital Technology argues that ink jet is not a painting in the traditional sense, but is painting in the sense that the artists establishes a vision, a thought, executes the thought either manually or digitally and then that thought is transferred to canvas (digital painting if you will) and will redefine the word paint.

Kenneth A. Kerslake argues, however, that:

The Victoria & Albert Museum seems to have a supportive view, stating that "The process is more defining than the support." The Tate Britain view is that, "Painting is a human action as well as an activity," and the Manchester Art Gallery "would not accept Giclée on canvas as painting although the effect can be similar."

When asked if John Hilliard's digital prints on canvas are about painting, Ian McKeever replied: 'no, not really' and that it lacks clarity of medium. John Hilliard's response is:

John Hilliard also states that 'there's no hierarchy as far as I'm concerned - just different specificity'.

In spite of variations of opinions in the discussion above, I would argue that an original digital print on canvas does not lack any more clarity of medium than screenprints or other accepted methods, and should therefore be regarded as a painting in the same manner.

Moving On
Just as screenprinting became an accepted art medium in the 1960s after years of use in commercial printing, so too are digital ink jet and Giclée entering the mainstream of art. Digital technology will not replace the old media but encourage new ways of thinking and working, creating a synergy and 'synthesis' between old and new processes, opening up new areas of freedom and diversity. The challenge is to move on from the legacy of traditional process-led art to concept-led digital art creation with a broader definition of its possibilities.

Art is about ideas, not about technology. Technology gives, however, new possibilities for ideas and the medium has always been closely linked to the idea and intention of the work, never its reason for being. With digital print the link to technology has become even closer. It is less labour-intensive, allowing more time for creative art making. Photographers are now able to make prints on a greater variety of substrates, and Photoshop is replacing traditional darkroom techniques.

James Faure-Walker, in a discussion with his German gallery representative, states that:

Painters have always used traditional and non-traditional methods and tools, and their artworks are referred to as paintings. Artworks produced and presented by the new digital technology should therefore be referred to as paintings as well, in the same way as when Andy Warhol used the new screen print technique to create his paintings.

Original Reproductions
In the light of technological development and global communication, this chapter re-questions originality, authenticity, ownership and the concept of limited editions.

Originality and Authenticity
Debating originality is not a new discussion in the art world; copies were made by hand in early days, legitimately or as a forgery. With the advent of print making techniques using blocks, plates and stones, copying became easier. Historically, prints were a reproductive medium and not until later seen as an artistic means of expression. The development of photomechanical processes in the nineteenth century made it possible to copy mechanically works of art.

Originality and authenticity were, in the twentieth century, debated also based on other issues. Pablo Picasso copied African masks, and appropriation artist Mike Bidlo copied Picasso, with e.g. Not Picasso 1988 - originally Mother and Child (1921). Bidlo's paintings are, however, always presented as Bidlo's, and he argues that everything has been done and all that is left for an artist now is recycling the art of the past. Andy Warhol was also indifferent to originality in art, and his soup cans and Marchel Duchamp's Mr. Mutt are examples of 'ready-made' art.

Binary Originality?
Digital technology has, however, raised the question of originality in a totally different way, since it is art designed for reproduction. In a computer everything is represented as numbers, binary digits (zeros and ones). It can therefore be argued that the original of a digital image is the binary code, intangible and cannot be perceived until reproduced by some electronical means - such as on a monitor or as a digital print.

In the essay, 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction' (1936), Walter Benjamin states that 'aura' of art, based on uniqueness, scarcity and ritual, is eliminated by mechanical reproduction and mass production. Instead of being based on ritual, art begins to be based on another practice - politics. Art will become more accessible and in short, be more democratic. The 'aura' and value have, in recent years, been replaced by another ritual, the exhibition value.

Blurring Concepts
Art produced by mechanical reproduction also lacks the 'presence' of the original work according to Benjamin. A lack of presence, it can be argued, that can partly be made up by the ability to be perceived in many places.
The Internet and the World Wide Web are blurring the concept of 'authenticity' and ownership. The Internet has also given geographically separated artists new ways to collaborate, e.g. "Exploding Cell" where a visitor to the website could create an 'original' image by manipulating the initial image, place his or her own signature alongside the artist's signature and print the result. "Generation/Mutation" is another example, where artists all over the world were invited to choose an image, download it to their own computer, modify it as they want and return it.

The digital opportunities combined with the increasing use of Internet and the Web brings art even closer to people and is even less authoritarian and more democratic than Benjamin could anticipate. Can art created by use of digital technology then be unique and keep the 'aura'? It is possible, in my view, by having the digital image transferred to a single canvas and thereafter deleting the digital file, then the art perceived on the canvas will be the only and unique object of that art work.

Limited Editions
With today's digital printing, an image with the same colour and quality can be printed on demand, in as many 'originals' as wanted, in different sizes and on different substrates. Artists now have an artistic and political choice, either making the art really available to a broader audience, or make a limited edition for commercial reasons.

Digital ink jet can be used to print both single images (monoprints), editions of multiple 'originals' or open editions, without loss of quality. The 'rules' of traditional printmaking can be applied including a print documentation record containing information about the artist, the printmaker, the technique, the edition size, the file cancellation method, paper and ink used and so on. A 'Certificate of Authenticity' can accompany every print with this information. The digital print is signed by the artist, and numbering can follow the traditional rules with a 'trial proof' (TP), Bon à Tirer (BAT) proof, 'presentation proof' and a 'cancellation proof'.

The Only Guarantee: The Artist's Integrity
Some critics argue that there is nothing stopping a digital artist and/or printmaker from making more copies before deleting the digital file. Although there are methods to prevent such misuse, like paper watermarks and digital watermarks , the only real guarantee within new as well as traditional print techniques, is the artist's and printmaker's honesty and integrity.

Part III of III

Back to Part I