The Post-Modern Metaphysical Implications of Digital Printing on Screen Printing
Digital printing has altered the way we conceptualize the production of art. Where screen printing has traditionally been a process in which ink is projected onto a surface and transferred to paper, digital printing projects an image made on a screen onto paper, bypassing both the physical and non-physical space for an alternative experience between the artist, work and viewer.
The materiality of the screen is a space for interaction. The image made by the screen (whether projected onto paper or directly onto the surface) is therefore an illusion of physical reality, a virtual representation of reality. Towards the end of this study, I will explore this idea further with examples from digital prints, exploring painting's potential role in responding to digital printing.
In digital printing, the act of 'framing' and 'origin point' are therefore crucial in determining how an image will be presented on paper via its spatial optics. The image made by the screen is part of a complex network of relationships that can only be understood in relation to the framer, projector and print itself. For now I will discuss these three elements separately, although their relationship is intrinsically linked.
The elements of the screen are similar to photography: a projection space and surface for an image projected onto paper - but unlike traditional photography, digital printing opens up a space for new experiments in image making, creating unlimited opportunities for composition, colour combinations and screen design (Skeggs & Wood 2007: 141). The physicality of the screen is therefore one that allows artists to make images that can transcend the limitations of traditional painting. The digital screen is therefore an innovative space for experimentation in painting, and as a result, the screen print has given rise to a new generation of artists who use this medium to create work that is both experimental and evocative. The present study will examine the digital print's potential for metaphysical investigation.
This study aims to investigate the artwork of two multidisciplinary artists who use digital prints as their primary medium of expression: Darryl Driscoll (b. 1972) from Melbourne Australia and David Shrigley (b. 1964), from London UK.
David Shrigley is an aficionado of contemporary art whose work has been collected by a number of museums worldwide . He is the creator of paintings, sculptures, books and other visual art projects that are both humorous and thought-provoking. As an artist he has secured a unique position in today's visual arts world. His work is renowned for its emphasis on the creation of prints that are both witty and visually stunning.
Darryl Driscoll is an artist who works between Melbourne Australia and Los Angeles USA . His work often comments on the grubby underbelly of suburbia with images that are at once playful and darkly humorous. While his work is highly subjective, it explores a number of narratives such as suburban angst, child abuse, poverty and erosion in society (Australian Centre for Contemporary Art 2004).
Both Shrigley and Driscoll were included in the prestigious 2009 Venice Biennale and Pause (Sydney, 2008), two national shows that have contributed greatly to their international acclaim. For this study, the work of each artist will be analysed separately to identify how their digital prints contribute to the metaphysical field of expression.
For Shrigley's digital prints, screen printing is his primary medium of expression. The physicality of painting is a subject he has explored with much interest as evident in his 2010 exhibition at Melbourne's Matthew Guy Gallery: 'A little too close for comfort' (fig 1). This is a series of works in which Shrigley explored the subtleties of the screen as a space for making work. For this exhibition, Shrigley exhibited two works that, like much of his experimental work, are highly subjective and have little to do with reality: 'Toilet Wall' and 'Caught Red Handed'.
'Toilet Wall', an acrylic on canvas painting (fig 2) is similar in style and content to those works he has exhibited in previous exhibitions at Matthew Guy Gallery. His earlier works with similar themes such as: 'Suburbia' (fig 3), 'Ten Pin Bowling Alley' (fig 4) etc are all observational pieces to which he lends his genius for visual interpretation.
'Toilet Wall' is one of a number of works on canvas with titles such as: 'Nudes at an Art Exhibition', 'Nudes in a Museum', and 'Nudes at Lunch'. In the centre of these works he has painted two lines in white paint that resemble toilet-paper. This is an interesting metaphor for Shrigley, whose work is often very personal but also very playful. Shrigley's apparently banal title suggests that these works are strongly autobiographical but this could not be further from the truth. These sculptures are essentially meaningless and make reference to nothing, other than their artist.
The title, 'Toilet Wall' is therefore an ironic reference to the act of painting and the notion that this work is a part of an ongoing process of self-exploration. While Shrigley's titles are banal and humorous, his works are far from it. When viewing these works, the first thing one notices is their colour - a deep red that fills the screen and saturates the surface. These colours marry quite nicely with those in 'Caught Red Handed': a greenish-blue that crawls across a screen as if it were water (fig 5).
These works differ in terms of their subject matter; however both employ similar strategies for actualising their goals. Shrigley's works are photographic in nature and are intentionally under-lit to minimise the effects of the angle, light source and colour (fig 6). For 'Caught Red Handed' the opposite is true. The angles and light sources are purposely manipulated to enhance their effect, making it appear more dimensional (fig 7).
Combining aspects of photography with 'art' is another common theme in Shrigley's work. He is a strong proponent of the idea that art can be found everywhere. In his 2010 exhibition at Matthew Guy Gallery, which was entitled: 'A little too close for comfort', his works addressed this issue. 'Stolen Snickers', (fig 8) a work in which he appropriated the image of a man stealing a candy bar is an example of his use of photography in his work. The chocolate bar, that the subject is eating, has become his visual representation for this piece: something unusual, yet familiar. This theme - appropriation - is one that Shrigley explores often. For instance, in 'Caught Red Handed' (fig 9) Shrigley exploits imagery that he has sourced from magazines and websites, by adding it to the printed image as if they were real: a type of digital collage.
Conclusion
Shrigley's works are clearly different from those of Driscoll: in the way they are framed; the colour, material and style of their construction; and the way they make use of digital technology. Shrigley's print-making technique ties in with the development of paint-on-canvas in Australia. It appears to be a short step from canvas to digital print, and some speculate that Shrigley is a pioneer with this movement.
Driscoll's work is very different from Shrigley's and his primary documents are digital prints. However, his work can be differentiated from that of Shrigley by means of his use of screen printing as a medium for expressing himself through art.