Discussion

The submitted prints although forming a significant international collection, constitute only a part of the project. Concurrent with the submission of the prints, artists provided meta-data for their submission offering a unique macro-holistic view of the print 2.0. Within these submissions the artists expressed unique and insightful observations in response to open questions derived from the three (previously established) research areas or ‘topoi’ of digitally mediated printmaking: ‘Emergent forms’, ‘Materiality & signature’ and ‘Modes of consumption’

When asked about the transition to new printmaking (Emergent forms) it was observed that ‘digital printing struggles to find its place, I think printmakers still value the traditional hand inked/printed work over the machine printed. In this sense it is not an equal, it is it's own thing’ [Respondent 43]. However accepting that ‘new ways of practice evolve all the time (and) there is an anxiety about Digital technologies devaluing printmaking. (Digital printmaking) offers new modes of expression, as it is sympathetic to one of printmaking's main attributes the ‘multiple’. I think it ‘may’ lead to more conceptual work, and therefore print artists being taken a touch more seriously by the wider contemporary art world, and competing with painting, installation, video and sculpture [Respondent 24].
Furthermore Respondent 50 (survey submission only) believed there to be ‘a whole new question of what actually is a print now. The concept of printmaking is currently being enlarged - Solid, 3D prints (U.W.E.) for instance’. A position which Respondent 18 expanded-’I think mobile devices will start (to) impact print soon perhaps they already are and I just don't know it. Augmented Reality as well I'm sure it's already worked it's way into print conceptually, just not sure how it's going to happen physically’. Moreover ‘New combinations of tactile and digital means are only just starting. I could imagine projections combined with printed surfaces, digital print installations that are presented simultaneously in various locations, etc. Trans-global exchanges are beginning also’ [Respondent 13]. Whilst Respondent 33 was quite clear that the emergence of new forms ‘Yes they already are - Digital print to high end art paper, online only dissemination of work, the non physical production of prints and the removal of the press/print workshop from the work practice’.

Within the context of ‘New materiality’ Respondent 33 identified that the fluid permanence and reversible processes of the digital medium are ‘useful in the design of finished pieces, but a finished piece is a finished piece. If you go back to a piece and change it, then this becomes a new work in it's own right, and the original work becomes state of the current piece. It's about process. This is not just limited to digital works but also to traditionally produced pieces… … my work practice involves the re-use and re-working of previous pieces whilst retaining aspects of the earlier work. This can change the context and theoretical framework of a piece, but also creates a timeline of ones work practice’. A position shared by Respondent 5’s view ‘(Flexible and changeable processes) - I use all these possibilities. Sometimes, I think I am finished with an image, but then I can rework it. I often entitle my work version 1, version 2. But in the end I end up with a final version, with a title’.
Although conceptions of ‘final’ works resultant from flexible process were common another respondent identified that in this context ‘The implications are to raise the bar for a standard of excellence and expression, since every possible artistic decision is now infinitely available within this medium! The artist even has to decide whether the image or work will exist in a single, final, ‘best’ iteration, or whether its point is better made in versions or transformations. This is exciting new territory’ [Respondent 13].
Respondent 35 felt that ‘In an odd way, this adds the idea of uniqueness back into area of digital production where so much of the discussion has centred around the idea of the copy. I have had works that I exhibited, then later modified, and exhibited again - each one of these states ending up in unique digital images as I never was disciplined enough to keep all the files as the work evolved’.
Altogether a general consensus emerged as to the positive value of fluid permanence and reversible process. As identified by Respondent 43 ‘I have works that go unseen that I pick up again and decide to print even though it was created years ago. I suddenly recognize a value in them that I hadn't noticed before’. Whilst Respondent 20 was ‘interested in the digital activity as a process, documenting the journey / unpacking creativity, as in the method of making and storing information. Respondent 30 cited that ‘It's a way of working that enables risk taking and boundary pushing - resulting in more creative work. My work is based upon these possibilities for change. In Photoshop, my files typically utilize a dozen or more layers to achieve the final piece’. Similarly ‘Artists can explore a wider range of options easily. Decision making becomes more important in selecting, editing and ultimately choosing when a work is deemed to be resolved and finished before picking which version is to be shown to represent that body of work/range of virtual states’ [Respondent 11].

In respect of the possible post-physical forms of the printed object, opinion was in part divided. Respondent 24 believes - ‘The printed ‘object’ and its appreciation, its physicality will remain endearing to those who like beautiful or stimulating objects. The digitised age lacks permanence somehow, although it floats in the digitised cloud, is that enough?’ Whilst Respondent 30 held that ‘eBooks can become both more and less than physical books. The ability to continuously scroll, have unlimited virtual space and embed links and video add a level of richness achieved no other way’, to which may be added the view of Respondent 20,’the challenge will be to ‘add value’ to the experience of the traditional object into a new dimension’.

As identified through contextual review questions surrounding authenticity and signature of the digitally mediated print are significant and respondents took the following positions.
Beginning with the view of Respondent 11 that - ‘People are reassured by the presence of a signature implying the presence and approval of the artist. It seems necessary and will probably prevail. I am happy with this provided it is discrete and doesn't detract from the visual quality of the work. Digital files can be tagged as being ‘created by…’ etc (allowing) an artist to create a digital file and ‘sign it’.
Respondent 35 believes that ‘This will always be an issue when dealing with digital technologies. I do like to be acknowledged for my work, but I'd rather have it seen without it being recognized as mine, than to never be seen at all… …I think in the future it may be some form of original file encoding. How about a ‘.(your-name)’ file type. Of course you'll need a viewer of some sort. Perhaps we will treat images like Apple treats songs on iTunes’. Whilst Respondent 43 was ‘Not sure it's necessary since there's a label that can accompany the work. It seems to be distracting in a digital work. Maybe the info could be embedded in the file info?’ A view supported by Respondent 18 - ‘The digital watermark looks so cheesy still, to me. Perhaps something embedded in the code of the image file, but that would also require that the viewer/taker of the image could also readily access that code’. However Respondent 37 was clear that ‘If the Artist is the driver then we might have a new experience of value, if in effect the software is the creator then we reduce ourselves’.
Perhaps the response of Respondent 33 that- ‘Nothing is original and digital signatures are useless. If someone wants to use your image, they will find some way to use it. Which leaves only litigation. But its not about the use of someone else's image, it's about how that image is put to use. That is the difference between copyright infringement and appropriation, which is a legitimate contemporary arts practice. The reworking of an image and the placing of that image into a different context equates to re-ownership of said image and the creation of a newly copyrighted image. I have no problems with another artist taking one of my images and re-owning it, but I would have problems with someone using one of my images to print on beer coasters. I produce unique edition prints through multiple layering that, I believe, would be nigh on impossible to replicate fraudulently.’ most fully illustrates the debate which surrounds this area.
In consideration of the ‘Modes of Consumption’ of the digitally mediated print the majority of respondents promote their work through their websites and printmakers network listings. A position expanded by Respondent 33; ‘Social network dissemination of info and use of these networks to post invites to view. Each artist has a gallery with a selection of their best work as well as an info page. I generally find that the main benefit is the ability for others to view your work online from wherever in the world they are, which leads to invitations to submit to prizes and exhibitions that you previously wouldn't have had access to, and the potential to work collaboratively with artists that you would normally have no exposure to as well as the ability to exchange ideas with artists from different arts of the world, who work in the same context as yourself’.

Although the majority of respondents identified the use of the digital medium to promote, participate in and curate the exposure / consumption of their art few respondents identified participation in on-line sales. Rather they were interested in the new possibilities the medium had to offer. As material and shipping costs have gone up, and the desire for broader audiences has increased, I find myself looking to the digital image remaining on screen more and more. I still love the tactile object, but some day screens will be able to change their surface/be tactile as well, I'm sure - resurgence of smell-o-vision! [Respondent 18] Similarly Respondent 5 identified that, 'More and more digital screens are popping up on all arenas, at the waiting rooms of dentists, doctors, at shopping centres, in the lounges of hotels. Places that a few years back, might of displayed graphic art, are now being substituted by digital screens. These digital screens have to have some content. Maybe this is the future display for digital images'.