I have to accept that I can be a little obsessive about the way in which reproductions are marketed, largely because I think that the essential qualities that go into making a work of art are being degraded. In my last post I talked about the need for clarity of language when describing prints in order that their particular status as multiple originals can be recognised. I have to accept though that the technology that allows even minor artists to build a business not by selling paintings or prints, but by selling copies, does introduce complicating factors into the idea of the 'original'. The easy availability of digital images also makes it much easier to appropriate the work of others to a greater or lesser degree which, in a different sense ,also affects our understanding of what we mean by 'original'. This is particularly so in the case of what I call digital prints – in other words images created in the computer and given a physical existence, generally through an inkjet printer*.
My digital prints are created in a variety of ways, all with the eventual aim of producing a physical object.
- In the computer using software that offers a computer analog to the artists brush (Corel Paint, Paint Shop Pro etc)
- By the manipulation of photographic images, whether produced digitally or scanned.
- By the manipulation of scanned drawings, prints, paintings, textures or found images etc.
- Digital collage, using photographs or other scanned images.
- Combinations of the above.
Having arrived at a final image this file is then output to the printer and the print emerges. This print is, in my view, an original within the usage adopted by the printmaking world. It was conceived for the medium, and it was produced by the hand of the artist or under their direction. This is I know a contentious issue with many people, and one I want to return to in another post. What I want to look at now however are some genuinely challenging questions raised by digital technology.
Let's start with this image, made by combining at least two photographs found online and then further manipulation in the computer. The work involved to create this image was complex and time consuming. It was not a simple 'press button' Photoshop filter. (The original source files were lost three computers back.)
I believe this image is sufficiently distinctive and different from the source photograph to stand in its own right - it is a new work. The basis for my view is that:
- None of the photographic qualities of the original image survive and the subjects are no longer identifiable.
- The pose is generally characteristic of tango and not an inherent distinguishing factor of the photograph.
- The work required to create the image was of a sufficient level of skill and complexity as to support the description of the image created as a new work. It has its own distinctive character.
Others may of course disagree, but that is my starting position. If however the image had been produced by application of a single filter to the source photograph, if the individuals had remained identifiable, if the pose had been unique and characteristic of the work of the photographer or if the image had been characteristic of the work of the photographer in some other way (eg Irving Penn), I do not think I would have reached the same conclusion. If the first image had been a painting or other similar creative work I would not have used it at all, even if out of copyright, except perhaps for personal education or perhaps as a subsidiary element in a collage.
I have taken my own image further however, in a variety of ways.
- By printing a simplified monochrome version of it over a screen-printed monotype background. The resulting image is in my view a monoprint, but could also be seen as collage or mixed media. Whatever it is called – and perhaps all apply - it is unique and I think qualifies as an original in its own right, distinct from both the source photograph and my own image.
- By printing the same monochrome version over a previous monotype made with acrylics by transfer from a plate. This is I think still a monoprint and as such is again a new image.
- By printing the monochrome image over a scanned monotype. The resulting image was made by physically passing the paper through the printer twice. Given that there will be minor variations in registration with the underlying image these are technically monoprints, but I would not sell them as such. I have instead chosen to offer it as a limited edition. If I were to go on to make other versions using a completely different background, this could be seen I think as a different image that could be reissued in a new edition. I'm unsure on this, but since I did not tell buyers of the first version that other color combinations are possible, I'm not going to exercise that option in this case. In part of course this image is also a reproduction...
- By combining the monochrome tango image with the scanned background in the computer and printing the combined image. The resulting image here is what I would call a digital print. It is no longer unique, but still identifiable as a new image. Again it is also in part a reproduction.
- By using a transparency from the tango image to create a solar etching from which I have made a range of prints in different colours. These were by way of experiment and have not been issued as an edition. It would be a simple matter to create different sizes of plate from the same image file. In this case, because the process of making the final print is so different I think we have a further original.
I believe that in each case the work done, the processes followed and the unique qualities of the image created make each of these subsequent 'variations' original images in their own right. I would be interested however in hearing your views on what I have done and where you would draw the line, if there is indeed a line to be drawn.
* I'm deliberately avoiding the word 'giclee' here, partly because that appears to have a different meaning in the US (=reproduction) to the UK (=archival quality) and partly because I think it is pretentious marketspeak! Whichever meaning you adopt, the actual printer is still an inkjet so I will continue to describe the output as being an inkjet print.
