10:09 AM 09/01/2002
I took some of the money that I made selling my paintings on eBay, and purchased a used Epson 3000 wide format inkjet printer, suitable for making archival black and white prints. Up until now, I have been producing only hand-rendered work, so I bring with me a set of standards and attitudes that are those of the painter, and not those of the print maker, or printer. (I think there is a little difference between these two terms)
I purchased the printer from a Chicago based photographer, who had it outfitted it with MIS pigmented ink cartridges, specifically intended for producing black and white prints, with a printer intended for use with coloured ink cartridges. I felt that this was a good place to start, as B&W has fewer variables than colour printing, and also, I have always felt that if I cannot first master a medium at the level of values (B&W), the addition of colour will just be building on an unstable foundation.
Since I had purchased a used copy of Photoshop 5 a few months ago, I began my printing experiment using Photoshop, as it is the acknowledged 'killer application' for print professionals. I joined a mail list that discusses B&W inkjet printing specifically, and Photoshop is the software that a lot of the discussions are based upon, so it turned out making more sense to 'learn the lingo' by learning the more complex Photoshop software immediately, rather than going with an easier-to-learn software package, missing out on the full value of the mail list discussions, and then eventually having to learn Photoshop anyway, somewhere further down the line.
I began by printing a couple test photos, just to see if the wires were plugged into the right places. Prior to paying the person I purchased the printer from, he ran a test printing for me, and the output was impressive. My own first printings were, by comparison, not much to brag about... it was immediately obvious to me that the deficiency was in me, and not the machine. I had a lot to learn about the printer, and also about the software (Photoshop) that I was using to direct the machine.
I'm not going to attempt to discuss the technical aspects in this article, as I am still basically a 'know-nothing', in my first weeks of using the machine. I think that the idea of using a computer and printer as tools of fine art, while not a new idea at all, is still one that is under scrutiny by a lot of the more traditional elements in the fine arts, and in the collecting communities. Recently, David Hockney has presented his studies of the work of some of the 'Old Masters', with an eye towards investigating how much the technology of their time (Magic Lanterns, etc.) influenced their work, and were used as tools in the production of the art of that time.
While this has become a major negative issue with the general public, and also with a significant number of people who are professionals in the fine arts, and should know better, I would suspect that for most competent painters, it is more silly than anything else. Personally, one of my favourite sayings is that, if Rembrandt was alive today, he would be using a digital camera, computer, and working from reference photos, etc. The purist claim that 'technology' taints art, is an amusing notion... if one were to carry the idea a little further back in time, it would be logically reasonable to claim that using brushes, and canvas, tainted the purity of art, as they were also technical innovations in their time.
My approach to making inkjet prints is that of a painter, and someone with a lot of hours spent drawing, and sketching. For me, the easiest way of drawing what I want is not with a computer, but by hand. This is what I find amusing about the turmoil that David Hockney's research caused, among the non-painters... only a person who has never forced themselves to learn how to draw, would consider technology, whether it be a magic lantern, or a computer, as a threat to the 'purity' of art. It is easier to draw what needs to be drawn on paper, and then scan it into the computer, than it is to draw with the computer tools... mouse and stylus with tablet.
I had a bunch of drawings and watercolours I had made for some posters I had helped produce, of American Sign Language handshapes. They were all done on pristine white paper, and were consequently difficult to keep clean. However, I did not want to sell them off, until I had saved them into printable computer files. This being the case, I began working with the ASL handshape for 'need', or 'should', for my first piece of inkjet artwork, figuring I could kill two birds with one stone, learning how to print, and at the same time, learning how to convert hand executed work into printable computer files, which could be reused wherever ASL handshapes were needed, and would not get dirty, laying around in my portfolio, and being handled.
More than simply turning out print copies of my hand rendered work, my goal with printing is to develop primary artwork in the computer, which has no basis on paper or canvas, but rather than to try beginning there, I find it easier to begin by using the manual tools which I already have handy... my drawing and painting skills. I immediately discovered that I would need to purchase a scanner, to input drawn images, because my digital camera does not produce nearly high enough definition or file size images, to be useful in printing, although the camera is perfectly useful for producing web images. It takes a substantially larger file size, with better detail, to produce a printed image of the same size as a comparable web image. An image as large as my browser screen prints out roughly the size of a postage stamp.
After scanning the first pencil drawing into my computer, I printed a copy, and set it aside. Then I began to manipulate the image, cleaning up details and adding background, and printing the results every so often. Finally, when I was close to having a decent looking print, (according to the standards of a painter, not a printmaker), I did some image manipulation with a nice feature that Photoshop has, called 'curves', which is a little to technical for me to explain coherently, but which is pretty easy to use, even without understanding how it actually works.
Finally, I sat down with the dry prints and pen and ink, and attempted to do some manual corrections on one of the prints in the middle of the series. This did not work out too well, though, as the printing paper, at least the kind I was using, which was high quality image paper, but not archival or artist grade, was too delicate and absorptive to respond well to hand manipulation. The ink went right through it, and made a mess of the paper, so I discarded it. I would imagine that there might be papers sturdy enough to rework by hand, but technically, the thing that makes a printer paperwork is high absorbency, and the think that makes an ink paper work, is its ability to be wet without soaking through, which requires the paper be sized, so I might be wrong.
As a painter, I am used to working from scratch. Even if I am working from reference photos, everything goes in my eyes, through my brain, where it is edited by strange psychological processes that I do not fully understand, and am in fact, not even fully aware of, and is then transmitted to my hands, which apply the information to the paper, or canvas, etc. Using the computer opens up a host of possibilities that are not part of my usual modus operandi, at the easel. I can start with a blank screen, which is the same as a blank piece of paper or canvas, or I can begin with a photo, drawing, or original drawing, scanned into the computer, or use one of the many sophisticated drawing/ painting programs available, which offer a whole new range of tools. One of the most important 'tools' that computer art programs offer, is the ability to save copies of the work-in-progress along the way, for use later, or as backup, in case the working copy is spoiled. Another equally valuable tool is the ability to isolate various elements of a work onto different 'layers', (image sheets of clear Mylar, here). There have been more than a few times when I wished I could do this neat trick on a canvas, or sheet of watercolour paper. It will take a few lifetimes to try out all the things possible on the computer, that are not possible on canvas, paper, or with any of the print techniques... etching, engraving, etc.
It is my opinion that for the 21st century visual artist, the inkjet printer (or its children and grandchildren) will occupy the place that earlier print media (etching, engraving, wood block, etc.) did in previous generations and millennia.
Combined with the computer and its ever-developing software, the possibilities are genuinely impressive. If Rembrandt were alive today, he would be messing with a computer and a flatbed scanner when he wasn't busy at his easel... and the output would be going to an inkjet printer.
I took the first four 'sign language' prints that I turned out, which were practice pieces in every respect, and as such had been turned out on non-archival paper, and just for fun, I listed them on eBay along with the rest of my auctions, and not wanting to cheat anybody, I clearly spelled out the fact that though the ink was archival, the paper was not. I set the opening bid to $3.99.
They sold... for $3.99.
The market exists.
*This article was written on a vintage GRiD Model 1040 8086 laptop computer, using DOS Edit text editor.