Viewfinder

Artspace H Gallery, Seoul, South Korea

22nd June - 5th July 2011

brook & black, Nicholas Devison, Edward Dimsdale, Michael Evans, Johanna Love, David Ryan, Mark Shaw

This exhibition brings together a group of artists that are united by an engagement with the photographic image. It is significant that over the last decade, photography has moved from the analogue to the digital, from a darkroom activity with delays to the expectation of instant gratification and the capacity to disseminate at will. Whereas for previous generations, photography was defined through its chemistry and apparatus, it is now defined by history and context. The association with truth or fact, a defining quality attached to analogue photography (even though from its earliest manifestation, it was acknowledged how convincingly it could fabricate truth), in the digital age this has been replaced by the manipulated image. It is therefore timely for exhibition like Viewfinder, to provide a moment to pause and reflect on what some of these changes mean to the artist and how the photographic image sits within other means of image production. All of the artists in Viewfinder attempt to unpick the photographic image, tease out its contradictions and above all return the viewer to an investigation of the surface.

Each artist poses questions about the nature of the photograph within this new digital age. brook & black, artists that work together as a collaborative partnership explore new and established means of image production, bringing together video stills, painting and digital photography. Nick Devison, suggests through his prints, aerial photography, the mapping of space and the contrast between amorphous data and exact location. Mark Shaw looks at the shifting mirage, images hovering between abstraction and figuration, which thwart the viewer seeking to find a comfortable resolution. Edward Dimsdale is likewise drawn to this ambiguous state, but here, in his work, he provides enough clues to fix the image firmly within the tradition of the photograph as the recorder of light. The resulting images, reduced and degraded, read more as ghosts rather than substance.

In Michael Evans' work, the images are the result of subjecting a series of paintings to a process of image manipulation called 'deconvolution'. Through this process, he moves towards a position wherein the works are the result of process, which on one level gives form while on another level separates the works from any discernable source. This sense of reduction and process is further evidenced in Jo Love's digital prints with added drawing. Her images provide barely enough data to discern the photographic source from which they originate. The remnants of information suggesting a distant landscape is further complicated by dust, particles, drawn across the surface in graphite. These act to both suppress an easy reading of space, the eye continually flicking to the surface, but also makes it hard to discern the nature of the information presented. There is of course, the further point that while for the analogue photographer, dust was ever the enemy, the imperfection that revealed the lie, here in Love's work, it becomes embraced as part of the very language of the image itself. From these indistinct visions, David Ryan returns the viewer to the rich colours and detailed surfaces of Italian composer Giacinto Scelsi's house in the centre of Rome. His film explores the idea of framing and a doubling of space - such as when images are caught in mirrors - in order to evoke a poetic reading of both space and sound.

Together, the works of these artists in Viewfinder form a cohesive exhibition, bound by a common obsession and questioning of the photographic image and how through digital technology, the photograph once fixed has become infinitely malleable.

Professor Paul Coldwell

University of the Arts London

뷰파인더 (Viewfinder)

이번 전시는 사진 이미지와 관련되어 결성된 작가들의 그룹 전시이다. 지난 10년간 사진이 아날로그에서 디지털로 진화하면서, 시간을 필요로 하는 암실 작업에서 벗어나 즉각적 만족에 대한 기대감과 원하는 대로 전달할 수 있는 역량으로 변화한 것은 의미 있는 일이다. 지난 세대에서의 사진은 화학반응과 장치로 규정되었지만, 이제는 역사와 컨텍스트에 의해서 정의된다. (사진이 최초에 등장한 시기부터 사진이 얼마나 설득력 있게 진실을 왜곡해내는지에 따라서 작품성이 인정되었음에도 불구하고) 아날로그 사진을 규정짓는 특징이 진실 또는 사실 이라면, 디지털시대에서는 인위적으로 조작된 이미지로 대체되었다. 그러므로 시기 적절하게 열리는 ‘뷰파인더 (Viewfinder)’와 같은 전시는 순간포착을 보여주고 이러한 변화의 일부가 작가들에게 어떤 의미로 받아들여지는지 또한 어떻게 사진 이미지가 이미지 제작의 다른 수단들과 관련하고 있는지 반영하는 전시이다. ‘뷰파인더’의 작가들은 사진 이미지를 면밀히 검토하여 모순을 파악하고, 무엇보다도 감상자에게 대상의 표면에 대한 연구로 화답을 시도한다.

각각의 작가들은 새로운 디지털 시대에서의 사진의 본질에 대해서 질문을 하고 있다. 협력관계로 공동 작업을 하는 브룩 (Brook) 과 블랙 (Black)은 정지된 비디오 화면, 페인팅 및 디지털 사진을 조합하여, 새로운 방법과 기존에 확립된 이미지 제작의 방법을 동시에 탐구한다. 닉 데이비슨 (Nick Devison)은 항공 사진과 판화에 근거한 작품을 통해서 공간의 존재성을 발견하고, 무정형의 데이터와 정확한 위치 사이의 차이점을 제시한다. 마크 쇼 (Mark Shaw)는 움직이는 신기루를 통해서, 추상과 구상 사이의 경계를 맴돌게 해서 감상자로 하여금 쉽게 정의 내리지 못하게 하는 이미지를 보여준다. 마찬가지로 에드워드 딤스데일 (Edward Dimsdale)도 모호한 상태의 작품으로 관심을 유도하지만, 그의 작업은 빛을 기록하는 사진의 전통적인 방식 하에서 확고하게 이미지를 고정시키는 충분한 실마리를 제공한다. 그의 작품에서 축소되고 저하된 이미지들은 실체라기보다는 환영으로 읽혀진다.

마이클 에반스 (Michael Evans)의 작품에서 이미지들은 일련의 페인팅들이 ‘디컨볼루션’이라 불리는 이미지 조작의 과정을 거치며 나온 결과물이다. 이 과정을 통해서 그의 작품들은 한 관점에서는 형태를 보여주지만, 다른 관점에서는 작품을 인식할 수 있는 근원에서 분리시키는 과정의 결과물로서의 상태로 나아간다. 이러한 축소의 의미 및 과정은 조 러브(Jo Love)의 드로잉이 가미된 디지털 프린트에서 극명하게 나타난다. 그녀의 작품 속 이미지들은 그러한 이미지들이 유래한 사진의 원천을 간신히 식별할 정도의 데이터만 제공한다. 먼 풍경을 보여주는 정보의 잔존물은 표면에 연필로 그려놓은 먼지 및 입자들에 의해 더욱 복잡해진다. 이러한 점들은 감상자의 초점을 반복해서 이미지 자체가 아닌 그 표면에 두게 함으로서 공간의 이해를 어렵게 하고, 표현된 정보의 본질을 식별하기 어렵게 한다. 또 하나의 주목할 점은 아날로그 사진 작가들에게 미세 먼지는 적이면서, 거짓을 드러내는 결함이다. 하지만 조 러브(Jo Love)의 작업에서는 이런 먼지는 이미지 자체의 진정한 언어의 일부로서 포용되고 있다. 이러한 불분명한 관 점에서 볼 때, 데이비드 라이언 (David Ryan)의 작품은 로마 중심가에 있는 이탈리아 작곡가 기아찐또 쎌스 (Giacinto Scels)의 집의 다채로운 색과 섬세한 표면을 감상자에게 보여준다. 그의 필름은 공간과 소리의 시적인 이해를 야기시키기 위해 이미지들이 거울에 비춰졌을 때처럼 공간을 구상하고 배가 시키는 아이디어를 탐구한다.

‘뷰파인더’의 작가들은 기존의 고착된 사진기술이 디지털 기술을 통해 어떻게 무한히 변화하는지 그리고 사진 이미지에 대한 공통적인 집착과 의구심이 합쳐진 하나의 통합적인 전시를 개최한다.

폴 콜드웰 (Paul Coldwell) 교수

런던 예술 대학

Print Research Network

I speak from my experience as a further education teacher of printmaking. This is a vital part of the cycle that feeds students into the system and often provides facilities post certificated-study.
I teach printmaking and am a member of a 30-strong group of Richmond Printmakers. We were started by a Richmond Adult College print tutor and have always looked, primarily, to the college for use of faculties. There are two good etching presses, an excellent Colombian press and, as a more recent tutor, I redesigned the facility for nitric acid etching and relief print.
The college is currently actively discouraging printmaking. Shame on them. There is no technical assistance. Printmakers have no facilities for computing or digital print. Aquatint was removed with no substitute facility. Part-time tutors provide absolutely everything organisational in their unpaid time. There is total management resistance to flexible use of the facilities, which are used for half of the week only. I have tried and failed to get funding to develop printmaking into the use of new materials.
I enjoy the stimulation of teaching and in desperation have left the college. I have developed a peripatetic printmaking kit. I now teach printmaking using two slightly less wonderful presses in two odd corners of the locality. I have developed copper-sulphate-based etching for this and am sad that print, which fascinates me, has been shoved into a corner.

Nicky Browne
020 8979 0548
07879852263
12 November 2007

Lithography Future

Print Research Network

Wisconsin print program was at the center of the print explosion in the 60s and 70s but things have changed as your topic demonstrates.
I'm particularly interested in the the decline of lithography in the US. At the moment The interest in the process at UW is nothing like a decade ago. This comes at a time when I continue to introduce more contemporary support processes like digital imaging, photographic plates, transfers, etc. The love I have for the process just does not seem to capture the current student that comes here. The drop off is drastic! In addition I have to confront my own colleagues who feel the print processes are outdated although the issue of multiples, duplication and dissemination of information is certainly a PostModern paradigm.
Best wishes,


Jack Damer
Professor of Art
04 November 2007

DOES PRINTMAKING HAVE A FUTURE IN ART ACADEMY EDUCATION?

Print Research Network

CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Does Printmaking have a future in Art Academy Education?

What is the current status of printmaking and how is it perceived?

What strategies have been employed by colleagues to ensure the future of printmaking within art academy curriculum?

The PRINT RESEARCH NETWORK will explore these issues in a round table discussion at the Impact 5 International Printmaking Conference on Friday 19th October 2007.
The discussion will provide a rare opportunity for international colleagues to locate issues of common concern and to suggest strategies for the successful integration and promotion of print media into Art Academy education and research. The aim of this exchange is to gain an understanding of the status and practise of printmaking on an international level and to forge links and supportive partnerships between colleagues and institutions.

Join us at
Impact 5 International Printmaking Conference Panel Session 10
Chaired by Nick Devison (UK), Printmaking Partners and Print Research Network Estonian Academy of Arts (Tartu Mnt 1), Auditorium 119 B
at 14.00–15.45pm

You may wish to develop views expressed in this forum into an abstract and send it to us following the RE: PRINT link at http://www.printresearchnetwork.org.uk/ All abstracts submitted will be published on the PRN website. The PRN will shortlist a number of these abstracts and successful contributors will be invited to develop their abstracts into a 1,200 – 1,500 word essay. These will be included in a PRN publication RE: PRINT that will record the reflections of international colleagues on the current condition and future of printmaking in art education.

Post your thoughts now on the PRN website: www.printresearchnetwork.org.uk

ALCHEMY

Print Research Network

It is the nature of revolution to engender change - and a digital revolution is no different - but nothing is as sure in life as change and we should embrace it and utilise it in our involvement with creativity.

Just as previous revolutions in history have involved humanity in discord and loss there has also been gain and progress: so should we be viewing what is happening now to printmaking. When Sean Rorke suggests that “of course (printmaking) has a future” there are many, I know who would support that statement, and I am certainly one of them.

Unfortunately it has been within my first hand experience as a lifelong student of printmaking to witness and feel the “resultant disenfranchisement of print from the core curriculum … …under the guise of financial ‘efficiencies’” which Nicholas Devison talks about.

I first studied during the sixties at Edinburgh College of Art when printmaking was a moving force and Inverlieth printmaking department was in existence. Sadly, it has now gone. However, I have continued to study and explore new facets of printmaking and I am energized by the possibilities open to us, in combining traditional media with digital output [George Whale and Naren Barfield discuss this in their book Digital Printmaking].

Open Access Printmaking Studios can serve to spread this awareness to artists and keep the life force going during the difficult times ahead.

I welcome the opportunity that the PRN will open discussion and debate, not only among Art Academy Academics but with students, artists, and printmakers who wish to share ideas and knowledge. Let us form that network and seize the chance to disseminate!

Anna Johnson
Artist/Illustrator/Printmaker, Creative Director of Green Door Open Access Printmaking Studio CIC. C.I.C.382976, Derby, and MA student.

Print Research Network

Print Research Network

The paradox of the multi-disaplinary, pluristic curriculum in Fine Art education has been the narrowing of many students' experience and understanding of how art can be made. For made, created, realised or performed is eventually has to be.The realisation of an idea through artistic means with any sensitivity and understanding in relation to the materials and processes used can only occur with some knowledge and experience gained from specialisation (time) taken to explore the intrinsic and unique nature of materials and processes. Specialisation, however, has become an anathema within Fine Art education implying 'craft' and work lacking in intellectual content. Printmaking has fallen foul of this notion.Compounded by the academic withdrawl from the making environments (workshops and studios), students enter printrooms to find only technical support implying and underlining the idea that 'technique' is all there is to printmaking and leading to the printroom being used mostly as a rerprographic facility.This disjunction of theory and practice gives a particular message to students, that theory and intellectual reasoning does not occur during the act of making and consequently the act of making is undervalued. As a result printmaking studios and other workshop facilities are in danger of becoming token resource areas.Printmaking survives as a healthy authentic means of artistic expression if we address the underlying and fundamental oversight by those in education who think that making is only a mechanical and technical process devoid of intellectual value.Perhaps we should at least ensure that the difference between printing and printmaking is known and undertood. We know but do they?

Gillian Golding
07 Oct 2007

Not another crossroads!

Print Research Network

Printmaking it seems is at another crossroads, and the signposts are confusing. Whilst there are murmurings of a resurgence in printmaking we are also being asked ‘is printmaking dead?’

The question surely should be; ‘Has printmaking got a future?’ The answer just as surely must be ‘Of course it has!’… and that answer should be shouted loud and clear. However, with some universities in England closing print departments in favour of digital and video suites, and others marginalizing the print departments to be no more than service areas for all students to dip into, printmaking is facing a crisis, at least in higher education.

If there are fewer printmaking degrees to be studied, are there fewer printmakers, and are there less teachers capable of teaching printmaking to the next generation?

It has to be said that there are many fine art degrees and masters courses which have good print departments in the UK, and let’s face it some students will get a better and broader experience at art college than possibly 20 years ago. But the drain of printmaking resources and expertise at higher education must stop, or in 10 to 20 years we will be discussing where we went wrong and going about the business of blame.
Universities such as UWE; Bristol, Anglia Ruskin; Cambridge, Brighton and Bradford are all standing tall, but there are too few places to do a printmaking degree or masters.

Those interested in printmaking are turning to sources outside of universities to learn printmaking and open access print workshops in the UK are going from strength to strength, with more and more people seeing them as an alternative or an add-on to their art education. However the experience of art college, of being in a vibrant educational environment that offers thought and challenges ideas, cannot be experienced just anywhere. The university art department is the true breeding ground of the next generation of printmakers.

We all have a responsibility for the future of printmaking. For printmaking to have a good future those in charge of printmaking departments must put their heads above the parapet and make things happen…(and when have you met a printmaker that cannot talk into the early hours about issues surrounding printmaking?)

The Print Research Network has the potential to bring university lecturers and heads of departments together in a common goal, to take printmaking forward, and to not let the accountants or the short sighted middle management of universities, (intent on advertising to the outside world, at least on the surface, that they are contemporary and modern), erode the foundations of printmaking, take away the core of print activity, and actively allow printmaking to be taken out of the equation to the next generation of artists as a truly modern medium.

I am not talking about rhetoric or research points here, I am talking about action to get printmaking at the top of the agenda again. I am talking about the need for a network of printmaking departments that are outward looking, aiming to work together to get to all those who find it hard to know where to go to learn about screenprinting, etching, relief printing and digital image-making, to show all those choosing fine art that print is modern and part of the armoury of the contemporary artist. I hope that the PRN catalyses printmaking lecturers to have a good look at their department and ask are they pushing the boundaries and offering students the full print experience. Can they do more?

The time is now to act and build a positive philosophy towards printmaking to strengthen our position and extend our knowledge.

‘Philosophically speaking we are right in the centre of fine art where the physical nature of the subject can expand. We are also in a period where anything is possible…where a love of rudimentary materials and basic methods runs alongside a fascination with the computer….’ Tim Mara

Sean Rorke
8 Oct 2007
Lecturer in printmaking, (De Montfort University, Leicester), Development Manager for Hot Bed Press, Salford, printmaking consultant and artists printmaker.