I screenprinted my graphic reappropriation of Mark Rothko's 'No. 14, 1960' at A2 size onto very thick, Canaletto artists stock over two days and I'm really pleased with the results.
I went in looking to exploit the inprecise medium of the silkscreen print. What is often referred to as a misprint has often struck me as the most interesting of the batch.
For this project, where I am imitating the paintbrush through a graphic process, I wanted to really increase the chances of slight misprints and in turn, transform one batch of 10 prints into 10 individual 1/1 prints.
The difference in each print is much clearer when viewed in person. I left slight blends in the ink, particularly the base layer of maroon, meaning the finished prints are streaked with hints of black and darker red.
I also varied the weight of pressing down when printing to achieve the disrupted surface texture on the blue layer inparticular.
I've numbered each print 1/1 individually. I feel that the distinct differences in each print warrant the separate editions, as apposed to the process being simply about a point being made. With this I am referring to the one off nature of fine art which I covered in my essay. I believe that aiming for this one off nature in a screenprint is an interesting approach which raises questions about where the line is crossed between fine art and design.
These prints were created very quickly as vector blocks in illustrator, however the slow nature of a four colour (including text) screenprint positioned me very close to the mindset of a painter, taking care over every small aspect of the process and in trying to cause disruptions in the pulling of the ink, I was both in control of the process - as apposed to it being an autonomous mechanism - yet still not entirely sure as to how the prints would come out.
No comments:
Post a Comment