THE CHANGING FACES OF
ART
PART I – THE SIGNATURE
ARTWORKS
Since the Renaissance
artists have at times made pints of their
major artworks. Printmaking over a period
developed into an independent art form.
Artists found printmaking an economical way
of making images that were affordable to the
masses. Artists realised that they could
reproduce an image manifold times, through
engraving and later through an etching, cost
effectively for the general public. It was a
way of sustaining their productivity while
they focused on their major artworks.
With the advent of
commercialisation in the 20th
century this became a matter of course.
Vladimir Tretchikoff was one of he first
artists to take advantage of modern printed
reproduction techniques (“one
of the most commercially successful artists
of all time”). He
worked closely with the commercial and
businesses worlds and allowed his artworks
to be reproduced synthetically. Many of his
reproductions were sold at non-traditional
art venues such as ‘BEARS’. In the 1970s he
was relegated to the margins of South
African high art. At this time he
indulgently claimed: “I don’t care what they
think I’m earning more than Picasso ever did
from my art”.
Apart from the many
issues and debates about his work, what is
of interest in this thesis is the issue of
reproduction. With Trechikoff he almost
always reproduced uncostly printed images of
his major works. This was, and in many cases
is, an issue with investors in that they
were concerned that the value of the artwork
was being undermined. Prints have
traditionally being considered as low art,
just as painting and sculpture was
considered as high art. In other words, when
it came to the actual artwork, the genius of
the artist was needed to give the artwork
value. This kind of ideological outlook is
closely tied to the 20th century
and specifically Western thinking where
progress is seen as consecutive and with
‘newness’ or ‘differentness’. With
printmaking the artists ‘hand’ became a
debatable issue and the multiplicity of the
prints were and are the result in a reduced
monetary value.
Added to these problems
of the Western idea of an ‘individual
genius’ were the developments of new
printmaking techniques that were more cost
effective - silk-screening and lithography,
added new perspectives to the printmaking
agenda. It is well documented that artists
prior to he 20th century were
seemingly threatened by the new developments
in mass production. Mass mechanical
solutions to printing and photography
marginalised those artists who earned a
livening from printmaking.
Photography offered a new
way of realising the world but was seen as
low art. Most of these ways are beyond the
scope of this essay, but, apart from other
concepts, photography did offer new ways of
questioning the authenticity of the image.
Photography offered a new way of mass
producing an image which was and is cost
effective. Photography was and is a
superlative process that replaced the
exclusivity of a growing middle class in
art. The photograph seemed to be the
ultimate subjection of bourgeois ideology
long before digital reproduction did.
With the advent of
digital reproduction the authenticity of the
artwork was further subjected to scrutiny.
There are many polemics in this arena; the
one that concerns us is that of the original
digital or multi-processional artwork in a
digital age. Printmaking in the late 20th
century appeared to become redundant.
Artists were able to reproduce their
artworks; to get their individual ideas
communicated cost effectively to a wide
public on a mass scale. Tretchikoff may have
being one of the first (internationally) to
realise this goal.
PART II – THE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
The debate of the
authenticity of the artwork has raged widely
in the 20th century, a debate
that was exasperated by collage and
furthered by Dadaism, Conceptualism and
Photography. Although much of the
philosophical debate missed printmaking,
towards the end of the 20th
century printmaking began to make its own
way into the ‘high art’ Art scene.
Printmaking due to its limited longevity and
reproductive characteristic was always
considered as a low art form. With the
advent of digitalisation and mechanical
specialised ‘high tech’ reproduction
techniques this exclusivity of the
individual object of ‘genius’ began to wane.
In the commercial market
this idea of longevity began to take
precedence. Art collectors appear to be
after artworks that have longevity. The
inherent multi-reproduction nature of
digital art has negatively far superseded
the collectors market that once was held by
photography. Photography is an art form used
by capitalism to collectively mirror
society, through popular magazines and
publications, and often as a Low Art
presents itself as High Art. This in itself
is a self-destructive duplicity.
The now ‘old’ forms of
printmaking now became exclusive once again.
Print shops and master printers emerged in
the gaps that digital reproduction left.
Printmaking as a craft seems to have emerged
as a high art form at the turn of this
century. Artists could now make traditional
forms of prints that were considered to be
high art and desirable by collectors. The
printmaking studios were encouraged to leave
there mark on the print as a sign of
integrity - to indicate that this was a
quality print.
Digital art seems to have
replaced oil painting this century. The
problem is that the digital artwork is
amorphous. It is a work that exists in
mathematical code. This is not only
exclusive to ‘Photoshop’ type artworks but
also digital photography which has quickly
morphed into this new digital form (maybe
because its one of the newer art
disciplines). Presently digital art is
considered to be low art as collectors are
confused about the authenticity of the
artwork. If they purchase a digital artwork
“what is the work?” The image or artwork in
a digital form can be reproduced thousands
of times without losing quality. Should the
print be considered the artwork or the
conceptual data?
PART III – THE ARTISTS
INTEGRITY
Chris Diedericks, a well
known South African printmaker who has
recently broken into Digital Art, in his
recent body of works presents his digital
prints with the name of the printing company
printed blazingly on the print. He claims
that just like traditional type printing
studios, who insignia their prints, so to
should the digital-print have an insignia of
the printing company displayed. He believes
that this gives the digital-print more
“integrity”. Although, in effect, this
appears to none initiates as a commercial
sign that advertises the company who printed
the work. It appears to be an illogical sign
that carries an oxymoron concept. The reason
for this is that digital print ‘shops’ are
not places of expertise or high
craftsmanship in the production of their
prints they rely solely on mechanical
processes where the quality of printing is
correlated directly to the quality of the
machinery that does the printing.
Chris Diedericks even
admits that in the near future, when digital
prints are seen as high, that this dramatic
sacrifice of the printed artwork will not be
necessary. On the one hand, he seems to be
scratching around trying to find a way of
adding value to his digital prints. On the
other, this incongruent sign insults the
viewer by indicating that the viewer needs
to be educated into thinking about the
longevity of the work - as if this is an
issue in serious art.
PART IV – THE
INTELLECTUAL BIGOTRY
In summary then: Chris
Diedericks believes that it adds value to a
digital artwork if the name of the printing
company is brazenly printed into the work
rather than subtlety displayed in the
catalogue or on the label. The
counter-argument is that these signs act as
commercial advertisements that read as
indicators of taste, in the widest
consumerist sense, as found on national
television or even in popular magazines.
Sadly, Chris Diedericks
sees no merit in an artwork that has little
longevity (which is relative -ed.) as
its retail value is marginalised, but places
a high degree of esteem on what he sees as
his own “permanent intellectual property”
even when he has appropriated other
‘artists’ images. As a justification he
clams to alter the other artist’s works more
than 30% - the legal requirement in
copyright law on intellectual property.
This rhetorical attitude
is the height of intellectual bigotry. So,
in order to let off a little steam, I cruise
down to the latest ‘Pick n Pay’ and peruse
the local merchandise vigilant to avoid any
brand names. Out of the corner of my eye I
see ‘the word’ – NO NAME
