My creative process complicates such concepts as "print," "reproducton," "original," "digital," and "copy."

I do not consider myself a "painter," "computer artist," or "printmaker" any more. My "medium" is nonexistent in such categories from which one must select, such as here at WWAR. I tell everyone I'm a "painting designer." 

I conceive of an image with my preferred design too, the computer. Then I relegate to my artisan team that "output" it as a painting. They copy the digital image by hand unto canvas. The chore is to painstakingly attempt to copy all the details exactly. I affectionately call them my "human printers." Then this intermediary "orignal" is scanned or photographed to take the image back into the digital realm. I as "printmaker" proof and adjust until I am satisfied for the image's final fate: the production of a limited edition of giclee prints on either archival paper or canvas. If on canvas I prefere the highest gloss so it has the "wet look" of paint. I consider the painting now like the reminent metal plate of an etching or the limestone of a ligthograph. It's a throwaway. But I know it's worth a lot to future collectors so I just keep them in studo storage.

I must confess I just love working in the grey area where categories of art become vague- even obsolete in my creative image making explorations. After decades of pursuing - residing in - this interface between the digital and the real, I am satisfied with the progress I have made BETWEEN traditional painting and computer art. 

My foremost criteria of success of any work such conceived and produced has never been WHAT substrate my picture is captured in, but how true the image mirrors my feelings as a post-modern Abstract Expressionist.

Some results can be seen in my portfolio here-
http://www.absolutearts.com/cgi-bin/portfolio/art/your-works-medium.cgi?login=pygoya&medium=Printmaking_Giclee

 

May 3, 2006 - Pygoya Rodney Chang; comment to-

 

 

Art Blogs - Artblogs - Art Weblogs - www.absolutearts.com - wwar.com

 
Home Archives May 2006 Digital Prints on Canvas???

[Previous entry: "Blank Space"]

05/03/2006: "Digital Prints on Canvas???" by Asbjorn Lonvig


I would like to ask your opinion.
Once an art work has been digitized you can print it.
Usually you print on paper.
Or cloth.
Or plastic.
Or....

artblog-25-printer (8k image)On this huge printer I can print in nearly any size.
On several surfaces.
One of them is canvas.


artblog-25-1-cathedral-square (24k image)One day I printed the motif "1 Cathedral Square" on canvas.
It seamed unreal, it seamed unfair, I felt as if I violated some basic rules.
Unreal because a canvas usually takes hours and hours to paint.
Unfair because all the troubles you have during the painting process had disappeared.

But it was amazing.
The quality of the print was that of a serigraph.
The paint layer was thick giving you the color depth and not least the color fastness of the serigraph.
And I felt this smell of quality serigraph colors drying......
The smell in the room was like when you print silk screen prints.
Another thing is that canvas is much more durable than paper.

I would never be able to paint this motif so perfectly.
My son Morten paints much better than I do.
He might be able to do it.

artblog-25-close-up (5k image)This tiny close up photo of the print on canvas tells the whole story.
The close up is of a basement window.
And as you can see the texture of the canvas sure is there.


The visual differences between a painting and the print on canvas are:
In the painting you can see the brushstrokes.
You can see the painter's shaking hand.
From a technical point of view you might prefer the print?
From an artistic point of view you might prefer the painting?
Of course there is a difference in price.
A unique painting is more expensive than a print.

I was lucky to win The World of Art Award 2006 competition.
This competition seeks to attract artists, galleries, museums who are redefining standards
of art excellence challenging existing trends and tendencies in art and culture.

To celebrate this I'll market editions of 100 prints on canvas knowing that it might be controversial.
See my efforts.
And - if you like - you might visit my new web site lonvig.biz with vision and prices.
I'll continue my investigations, just now we are printing huge canvases for Lauritz.com auctions.
And then one large "Blue Sky - Guggenheim" to a North Atlantic customer.

Thoughts
I think people who like to have a print on canvas and not a painting on canvas should be offered the possibility as long as there is no doubt what so ever which ones are printed and which one is painted.
For instance by writing number/edition in the lower left corner and by printing "Digital Art Laboratory" in the lower right corner below the signature.

And
I can't resist this opportunity to show you my work from last week - text posters:

spanish-bull-200-text (17k image)thunderbird-200-text (15k image)france-3-200-text (12k image)butterfly-fish-200-text (17k image)

Replies: 1 Comment

on Wednesday, May 3rd, Mark R Brockman said

I think any tool to create a work of art is a valid thing. How one creates, with what one creates, is not so important as to what they create. I have one question. There is a difference between a "PRINT" and a REPRODUCTION. A print is from a plate, stone wood, something the aritist actually worked, a reproduction is taken from an image produced seperate from the "print/reproduction" process. Each print though taken from the same plate is different then all the others, even by just a little. Making art digitaly, makes each "print" just like all the others, such as a reproduction does. So finally here is my question, is a digital "print" a print or repoduction? I know it seems like splitting hairs but I do feel that it is an important distinction.