Back in September last year, I got myself quite enthused with the project set out below. I shared the original polemic and received quite a bit of positive interest. However, as I said at the time, I knew that I did not have the energy to pursue it with the energy it deserved. So i just let it lie and got on with more important personal work.
But since then I have started this blog and thought it might be worthwhile putting it on here in the hope that someone somewhere might want to pick it up and run with it. So here is the initial piece:

Through this initial discussion I want to explore, and hopefully also offer the germ of a solution to, the issues surrounding giclee (computer inkjet) prints, or other photo-mechanical reproductions being signed and sold as "limited editions" to the detriment of those artists who produce genuine, original, most often hand printed, work.
​
Most printmakers and some galleries and curators continue to be plagued and annoyed by this issue and often discuss it amongst themselves; usually to very little end other than to continue to feel angry, smug or both; as well as having to constantly explain it to potential buyers. My idea set out below of one way this question might be addressed may not be original. There may well already be an ongoing scheme similar to that which I outline. If so, my research and questioning has not yet revealed it.

Let me first make one thing clear: As far as I am concerned, the issue is not with the sale of 'giclee' prints as such. I have no problem at all with art being made affordable by the use of reproduction. And there are of course an increasing number of artists who are creating and printing original images digitally. My concern, as with most printmakers, is the confusion brought about when reproductions of works created in another medium are sold as so called ‘signed limited editions'; simply in order to confer upon them a spurious rarity value.
 
Here is not the place to describe all aspects of the making what I will call ‘original’ prints. Similarly I think it would be almost impossible to capture, in one simple explanation, every single aspect and types of image making that could be defined as an ‘original’ printmaking. In many ways, of course, it would be preferable to identify and clearly label those prints that are not originals, but are simply reproductions. But clearly that is never going to happen!
 
Such a definition of an original print has already been attempted many times. I doubt we will ever be able to please everyone or include every relevant aspect, but there is a need to at least attempt a new and brief contemporary definition on which a majority can agree. From this could also evolve more comprehensive summaries for wider general use.
 
Having thought about this at length, I believe that what we need first is a way in which original artist’s prints can be simply, quickly and clearly identified and promoted at point of sale/exhibition. Not, as some have suggested, in a tedious legal, trading standards way, but something more akin to the way CAMRA – The Campaign for Real Ale - managed to successfully promote a product with many variations but a clear identity. (Indeed, I did think of ‘Campaign for Real Artists Prints’ as a title for this project, but decided the acronym ‘CRAP’ was perhaps not what we needed!)
 
What we do need is a brand. A recognisable and widely promoted quality mark/logo which would only be associated with original artists prints. This ‘badge’ would need to be linked to, and explained by, the agreed definition and explanatory material mentioned above, of what an original print is (or what it is not).
 
I imagine it working something like this:
 
A sticker or stamp with the easily recognisable and widely publicised logo of the scheme would be applied to original artists prints – and ONLY original artists prints - at point of sale. Not on the work itself, but on associated price labels, cello wrapping, frame backing etc. Somewhere close by – in the gallery or studio - would be displayed and obvious the same logo; along with the agreed definition of an original print and brief but fuller explanations. This could be on small, durable wall display cards, leaflets etc. Those doing the selling or supervising would also be able to explain the definition and the scheme itself at greater length if required.  I have in mind, for example, the way the ‘Own Art’ system is displayed and promoted. In due course, the identity of the scheme and its uptake – and thus the identity of genuine original artist’s prints would grow to the point where potential buyers and collectors would hopefully begin look for the logo on work they were interested in. Galleries and printmakers would be stimulated by the commercial advantages of this and be keen to become part of the movement and happy to make the effort of applying the logo and displaying/explaining the scheme information.
 
As it would only be linked to works meeting the broad criteria of an original print (and at the moment I see it only practically applying to conventional fine art printmakers producing ‘normal’ signed editions) it would still rely on the integrity, honesty and knowledge of the seller and the back-up of a wider education and information programme that we still need.
 
Personally I would not want anyone to try and police the scheme in any strict legal way. I would not want to see it ‘owned’ by some grand membership ‘Society’ or other.  Certainly after the initial involvement of printmakers themselves, galleries and other outlets for such prints would need to come on board. There would probably need to be a loose association of users and supporters and some means of providing (at cost) the materials. Perhaps I’m being idealistic, but in these days of instant communication, perhaps this could operate on a communal web based system at very little cost; maybe just with some ‘crowd funding’ or similar to kick it off?
 
So - there it was. I still think its a great idea. I would be more than happy to see maybe even an adapted and changed version attempted. Anyone????

​This post is about the two little greeting card/prints I have created for visitors to ‘have a go’ with during my upcoming ‘residency’ at the Whitehouse Gallery in Kirkcudbright this Easter .
I apologise for its complexity of explanation in places.  I’ve tried to simplify but I know some people will be interested. And never did know when to stop!
​
As always – even these little things needed some preparatory drawing.  I believe it is the essential basis of much printmaking – especially linocut, to allow ones brain to explore the image in detail first; before beginning to carve. Of course some lino printers  work every part of the block out first and then simply remove the non-image areas. Of course, with things like text, I do this too,  But most often, I like to ‘draw’ the image with the gouges.  And I find to do that I need the almost subconscious preparation of having already translated the source material into graphic form – albeit initially in tones. For one of these prints  I had a hare drawing already prepared, but decided she was a bit serious looking, so I drew another.

​This exercise was partly personal experimentation and partly preparation for showing the use of the XCut Xpress during my gallery residency.  Also the intention was to combine screenprint with linocut. (see below) so I used the white plastic base board supplied. And, because I needed a registration method that was transferable to screen printing, I didn’t use the Ternes Burton pin registration system, but reverted to my more usual method of three thin card ‘stops’ to fix the position of the ‘lay edge’.

​The two wee blocks were carved and proofed in register and just in black.
It is my habit now to print on the XCut in one direction only - from left to right, handle turning clockwise. And I tend to register to the farthest edge of the paper; believing the card stops to help keep the paper in position. Of course, with the Ternes Burton pin system the other edge is used, as the tabs help stop paper drag as it goes through the rollers.
I later flipped the block around 180 degrees, to how it is shown in this pic, so it was still printing in the correct place to make a greeting card, but this allowed the block to pass under the rollers first – thus reducing the risk of paper movement and mis-register.

In over 40 years of screenprinting I have never seriously tried to print on paper without the use of a vacuum suction print table.  All that is about to change!
First I bought a pair of these https://goo.gl/17NOgV on EBay. Less than a tenner including delivery. OK I had to wait for them to come from Hong Kong, but they looked sturdier in the pictures than some others I had seen. And so it proved. They seem remarkably well made and efficient for the price.
The screen is a 140t mesh 30mm aluminium section and the base board is a ‘re-purposed’ bit of old kitchen unit melamine surfaced chipboard, with a prop and support made from offcuts.

​The black proofs from the lino blocks were used to trace and hand paint six stencils on the screen (I will have to explain this process in another post – this one’s too long already!) The ‘lay edge’ i.e. the corner of the sheets of paper which will go into the registration stops on the XCut is made with thin plastic stops taped firmly to the base board for each of the six stencils (three colours per print).

This part of the experiment was crucial. Modern water based screen inks are not only non toxic; they are thixotropic i.e. they pass fluidly through the screen mesh under pressure from the squeegee, but do not flow much when in the screen. Thus, not only are they less messy (and less smelly!) than the oil based inks I used for many years, but they are less ‘gluey’. I hoped that if printed thinly (hence the very fine 140 mesh) and in relatively small areas, they would not stick the paper to the underside of the screen; thus enabling heavyish paper to be printed cleanly without a vacuum, with no smudging from having to peel the print away from the underside of the screen after each pull.
The results were even better than I hoped. Sometimes I had to just wait half a second for the paper to drop back to the bed before lifting the screen and doing the ‘flood’ stroke, but overall a perfect result. It will be interesting to see if larger areas of flat colour will be just as successfully screen printed without a vacuum.
​
And so a few sheets of 300gsm paper for each image were proofed with three carefully planned colours of transparent screen ink, which also overprinted each other in places to produce extra tones.

The next and final stage was the most interesting. Would the screen printed tints register with the lino block through the XCut? Would the colours work? Was it all worth it when I already have perfectly good and efficient kit that will do all of this with no problem??!
Two different but more subtle dark browns of Caligo Safewash were mixed for the key blocks and a mask cut to keep the margins clean (note the use of vinyl tape on the ‘forme’ made to fix the block’s position. This makes for easier clean up). The same lay edge goes into the card stops and away it went through the press.

And so…I can just about say that this experiment was a success! The combination of method and dual registration worked just fine - at least at this scale. I will now cut a few hundred bits of paper to size; seal up all the final ink mixes; and prepare for mass public production over Easter!