I don’t see the two forms as competing, they are just different. With few exceptions I sell my digital prints in open editions. I believe limited editions of digital prints are nothing to do with art and everything to do with marketing – it is exactly the same mentality as markets the repros of oil paintings as ‘prints’ without any qualification. That’s just my view of course, others are free to do as they wish. (I wouldn’t normally buy such prints either)

That said, the art world still has to adjust somehow to the implications of unlimited ‘originals’ as represented by true digital prints. There is a practical limit on the number of impressions that can be taken from a collagraph plate. No such limit exists for the digital print. ‘Volume’ however has no relationship to ‘original’ (in the printmaking sense) so from one perspective the millionth print from a digital file is as ‘original’ as the first. This is something many people find hard to accept however and I can understand why, even if I don’t agree. Somehow it seems as if volume SHOULD affect the idea of what can be seen as an ‘original’

My view, for what it is worth, is that an ‘original’ digital print (remember I’m not talking about repros, but images that have been made in the computer) should in some way have the same requirement to be produced by the artist or under the direct supervision of the artist. That isn’t easy, because once a proof has been agreed, provided the printer, inks, and paper don’t change, the millionth copy won’t be any different.

I suppose it boils down to what in printmaking terms we think is the matrix for a digital print. Is it the file? Is it the on-screen display? It has been suggested to me by one person that the file is the original, but then the same person tried to argue that the original of a photograph is the negative…

I think the public do get it and I don’t really believe digital artists are trying to hang onto the coat tails of ‘hand-made’ fine art prints.

In any case digital printing is often referred to that way so in a sense you have that side covered. But you need to be careful because the cheap Epsom I have on my desktop isn’t the printer I’d use to make art prints with.

To produce high quality images from your desktop you need a lot of technical knowledge and cash to burn. The high-end inkjet printers are pricey as are the inks and papers that go with them. Many artists have mid priced machines for proofing but rarely produce runs of work for exhibition this way.

If I want a good run of prints made I go to professional digital printers and have a run of prints hand made, sorry no digital printer operates itself. I also don’t think you’ll find too many artists making unlimited runs of work that’s neither practical nor wise.

The machinery is different but no less authentic or engaging. You seem to suggest here that your unspecified ‘hand-made’ print process is original where the digital is somehow not.

I’m certain the people at Fine Art Digital Environment http://www.faderesearch.com/ would also have quite something to say on the topic of ‘hand-made’ digital prints as many of their researchers seem to be engaged both academically and practically in the task.

Digital is a different process and I don’t think anyone is trying to argue that they are the same but your argument seems to suggest that digital is less authentic, creative or demanding than any other mode which I’d have to take issue with.

A fine art print is just that regardless of the way it’s produced. I don’t say a Jackson Pollock painting isn’t art just because he used house paint and the same applies here.

By the way you have just run into someone researching a paper on digital painting so I’ve a fair bit to say about the topic at this point, hence my ever so slightly lengthy response.

Many digital fine artists use a lot of craft and often have distinctly fine arts backgrounds. A glance at Seegmillers Advanced Painter Techniques and you will see that digital painting can be as complex and hand made a process as any other mode of art production.

I imagine computer generated art will follow photography where prints made close to the time of artistic creation get a higher premium. I can also imagine that perhaps the artist will not only provide limited prints but digitally signed copies that could be projected on a framed screen.