4 Colour Separation,  Acrylic on layered transparent films 2012. (All Images © David Shriggs)

 David Spriggs is a Mancunian born in 1978 who settled on Vancouver Island after immigrating to Canada. He has solidified his well-deserved position in the worldwide art market with stunning large-scale installations featuring either intricate layers of spray-painted transparent sheets, ink on layered transparent film, engraved transparent panels, or elaborate 3D works using layers of cut aluminum.

Over a decade before Refik Anadol and other computer artists were wowing crowds with their first-generation back-fed displays and room-filling “immersive” projections, David Spriggs was well on his way to honing a different approach to creating monumental three-dimensional works and ethereal presentations to captivate passersby. Rather than envelope the viewer with projected imagery, Spriggs’ multi-layered works maintain their physical space as true art objects and effortlessly draw viewers to them. At exhibitions, you commonly see groups circling the works within inches of the outer surfaces to engage from variable angles while peering up and down to comprehend the unique lighting and hanging methods.

From Vision II, 5x2x5 meters, Acrylic on Transparent Sheets, 2017 (© David Shriggs)

Punchy spray-painted color fields on polyester film, intricate engravings on glass sheets, and machine-carved aluminum sheets all feature technical precision with bold yet soothing emotional strength. The lighting choices combined with reflections from closely layered surfaces seem to pulsate in dimly lighted rooms while testing one’s perception and interpretations of what is real and what is imagined. Since the works are not projected, all elements are tight and sharp.

Shriggs deftly constructs installations that are compatible in a variety of settings, from opulent lobbies of traditional hotels to glimmering contemporary office spaces and homes. Structured encasings used to “hang” the layers serve to protect and maximize the depth and intricacy of the works. One swirling work from Red Gravity was repurposed as cover art and a stage backdrop for a recent tour by UK musician, Peter Gabriel, who chose the work of Spriggs over hundreds of other artists considered for the album cover.

Transparency Report, layered sheets of engraved glass 2014 (© David Shriggs)

My first exposure to Shriggs’ work was the 4 Colour Separation of 2012 (See banner above). I had assumed that the transparent layers were individually printed digitally on a large format printer; however, each layer was actually spray-painted from the center out, thus rendering the softened edges of color that produced a contemporary simulation of many of the mid-century Rothkos with equal amounts of inexplicable magnetism and ambiguity. I recalled my first visit to the red Rothkos at the Tate Modern in London. Standing a few feet in front of these towering works, the color became meaningless as you let your eyes lose focus, thereby allowing the entire surface to pulsate as elements within the field create an illusion of ebbs and flows. While the cerebral effect is similar, Spriggs’ 4CS took the opposite approach by isolating the 4 separations into distinct display cases, a stark interpretation of elemental roots from which all imagery is formed.

Aker, layered sheets of anodized aluminum 203x203cm 2023 (© David Shriggs)

Technology plays a larger role in the intricate compositions and etchings of multi-layered acrylic sheetings from Transparency Report (2014) and Logic of Control (2014). In Aker (2023) and several commissioned works installed throughout Asia, Shriggs uses computer-driven cutting technology to create massive layers of anodized aluminum to make wall sculptures, chandelier-like ceiling installations, and several trademark large-format displays. Rarely do we encounter visual artists who can span the false dichotomy between analog and digital while incorporating contemporary presentations into traditional visions so effortlessly.

Works by David Shriggs are featured in some of the finest corporate and private contemporary collections around the globe. He has exhibited extensively in most regions, with important previous events held throughout the Americas, the United Kingdom, Europe, Japan, Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Australia.

For additional information about the artist and his art, please visit the David Spriggs website at https://davidspriggs.art/

Red Gravity by David Spriggs used by Peter Gabriel as cover art and stage background 2023 (Image © David Springs)

Starting in 2007, JP Paul created several series of mixed-media works on canvas featuring diverse, story-driven messaging that were simultaneously inquisitive, thought-provoking, occasionally disturbing, and regularly misinterpreted. Partial human bodies were reduced to abstract forms and intertwined with other elements and props, including discarded mannequins, plants, flowers, pots, vases, bottles, animals, and sculpture plinths that served multiple purposes beyond their principal representational function. The original series was named “Compromised”, one of several series that comprised most of the independent artist’s output between 2007 and 2015.

Thereafter, the multi-discipline artist explored organic materials and alternative processes in purely abstract paintings and non-representational mark-making studies that featured physical applications rather than overt storylines. Toward the end of this period, a lifelong goal of writing his first novel brought with it a desire to further explore some of the original stories and statements initiated in the first Compromised series.

"Untitled VI" from the Challenging Perceptions Series. 2024, Mixed media on canvas, (60 xx 60 inches 152 x 152cm)

“Challenging Perceptions” brings JP Paul back full circle to previous studies of the forces and effects of variable perception, marginalization, and misinterpretation as they relate to the human struggle to reclaim control of one's life in the face of social and political pressures on freedoms, liberties, the rights of women, minorities, struggling families, displaced war victims, refugees, and asylum seekers. Divisions based on identity surface both contextually and visually, with many of the symbolic abstractions featuring multiple dichotomies in the form of visual chasms and contradictions between beauty and pain, power and fragility, and strength versus submission.

While some may give pause with the latent sexuality in this series, on closer examination —and after twenty years following the artist's growth — the works are celebratory and inquisitive rather than exploitative. The symbolism behind intertwined bodies, vases, and flowers represents lost opportunities, support, and respect rather than the slightest shred of misogyny. According to Paul, many of the human forms are purposely exaggerated as a counterpoint and criticism of ourselves, particularly the male gaze. Other bodies throughout all phases of the series are actually male or androgynous, thereby representing the struggles of all genders and minorities rather than only women.

"Untitled III" from the Challenging Perceptions Series. 2024, Mixed media on canvas, (100 x 60" | 254 x 152cm

According to JP Paul, "In 2007 we were planning yet another transcontinental relocation, this time to the United Kingdom. I never felt that I'd exhausted all avenues with the original Compromised series, but I was without adequate studio space to work on this magnitude of mixed-media work for well over a year. Once we resettled, other priorities dictated the path for the next few years, so I'm thrilled the stars finally aligned and I was finally able to revisit this body of work. I'm also working around the edges with smaller tangential works that relate to the core."

"Untitled IX" from the Challenging Perceptions Series. 2024, Mixed media on canvas, (80 xx 60" 205 x 152cm)

The artist gives himself a wide berth for this series in terms of content messaging as well as his application of diverse materials and techniques. Perhaps this explains the depth and breadth of what promises to be his most consequential collection to date. Better known for series that rarely surpass six to twelve pieces before Paul gets an itch to explore other ideas, "Challenging Perceptions" already includes over thirty works with more full-sized canvas works and drawings on paper to come.

JP Paul has always straddled the line between analog and digital techniques since his early days as a photojournalist when he actively explored alternative processes in both his physical darkroom and the early years of digital imaging. “Challenging Perceptions” epitomizes the artist's desire to harmonize all of the above. His canvasses are hand-primed and layered with combinations of everything from thick acrylic gels and paint to partially erased carbon markings and smudges, watercolor or chemical washes, and thin stain layers to maintain transparency and textural consistency. Some images are partially printed on the artist’s in-house printers while others are spot silkscreened or transferred via gel or acetone, all depending on the specific effects sought. Drawn portions are applied directly with acrylic markers while others are drawn with a large Cintiq tablet before printing. Certain elements, such as some of the flowers, were originally scanned live on a Heidelberg flatbed scanner before being transferred to large canvases. At over five feet by up to eight feet, they are some of JP Paul's largest works to date.

"Untitled XIII" from the Challenging Perceptions Series. 2024, Mixed media on canvas, (80 xx 60" | 205 x 152cm)

In many ways, "Challenging Perceptions" serves as a culmination of twenty years of work that embodies JP Paul's abstract, symbolic, and representational phases.

"Untitled XXI" from the Challenging Perceptions Series. 2024, Mixed media on canvas, (90 xx 60inches 225 x 152cm)

"Untitled XXX" from the Challenging Perceptions Series. 2024, Mixed media on canvas, (60 xx 60 inches 152 x 152cm)

At ART SG '24 I was pleased to receive a double dose of Malaysian-born, UK-based Mandy El-Sayegh’s collage works in the booths of two heavyweights of the international fair circuit, Lehmann Maupin and Thaddaeus Ropac.

Now in her late thirties, Mandy El Sayegh assumed a worldly approach by default. Half-Malaysian, half-Palestinian, and with a formal education and upbringing almost entirely in the United Kingdom, she has earned considerable attention on the international art scene over the past half-decade with influential exhibitions on several continents. El Sayegh is an artist whose appeal started and will remain global rather than be confined to regional pockets of interest.

While El-Sayegh’s works are deadly serious, they can appear chaotic and anxious. Nevertheless, they refuse to scream at the viewer. Instead, their predominantly muted tones and intricacy draw viewers closer by creating ongoing discourse rather than stifling it. The approach is smart and sophisticated despite surfaces that might at first glance appear hectic or random, neither of which are true on closer examination.

I've often referred to the allure of controlled chaos or calculated randomness when discussing contemporary works that I admire, dating back to Rauschenberg and some of the German expressionists. El Sayegh has this in spades. Duality of intent and purpose — both visual and contextual — are evident in the processes and results of every layer of these complex pieces.

While the artist is not imposing her will or choices upon anyone, I see Mandy’s thoughtful visual decisions as a useful twofold reminder to certain artists who may not understand why success has not come naturally to their exquisitely crafted pretty pictures, or conversely, to their in-your-face naive snark: First, artists can and often should have strong arguments and statements to share, but they never need to be offensive or condescending in their approach. Second, the art that matters in the present and survives the test of time is usually much more than endless inner-journey kabobbles, desperately needy soul searching, or constant navel-gazing. From El-Sayegh’s first forays into visual art, it’s clear that the artist recognized a role that mattered to her and also resonated across the larger picture. Her explorations, while deeply personal, are also globally relevant and automatically scaled to matter even on the largest of platforms. Indeed, recent forays into large-scale, multi-faceted installations covering every surface of entire rooms affirm to me that she recognizes her talent and her potential role.

Mandy El Sayegh in Lehman Maupin Booth @ Art SG 2024 (Image courtesy of Art SG)

El-Sayegh cleverly employs delicately shifting dichotomies as exterior conditions change. It's easy to assume that the artist would prefer that these works continue to morph and mature with age similar to open-ended works in progress. I get the sense that El-Sayegh has a difficult time letting them leave her studio. Yes, they need to breathe, they need to be free, and there's no message if nobody sees it. But like life, there is always another chapter to add as conditions are affected by new events or new approaches to old issues.

Plenty is suggested but not everything is gifted in El Sayegh's layered surfaces. The works somehow manage to simultaneously appear brazen albeit reserved, thereby offering a push-pull between what we see, what we think we know but don’t, what’s actually happening, and what’s most likely to occur far beyond what we can comfortably fathom without careful consideration of each important element.

In a short period, El Sayegh’s works have already been mentioned alongside some of the great artists who incorporated collage techniques into their oeuvres, artists who, like El Sayegh, were able to create and continue conversations in endless loops by referring not only to their own previous work in new works but also by encompassing endless outside references to enrich shared narratives. Front of mind are Picasso and Man Ray in the early 20th century to Germans like Schwitters, Hoch, and Soltau, late 20th-century American icons Rauschenberg, Kruger, and Baldessari, UK's Hockney and Hamilton, and the recent black cut-outs of Kara Walker. Although wildly dissimilar visually, there is a common thread of story capturing and morphology that runs through these artists.

Mandy El Sayegh in Lehman Maupin Booth @ Art SG 2024, Singapore (Image/AF)

While the artist has recently developed tangents into writing, installations, and performance art that tend to be more singularly focused and trimmed of the collage complexity, they are easily as powerful and more so. Many of them juxtapose seemingly disparate elements into coherent final collections that initially defy the connection between the parts and the whole., the latter being a relationship in which the artist has stated she is profoundly involved. Equally important, most of these questions and concepts have readily identifiable roots in her two-dimensional collage work as El Sayegh continues to expand upon her fast-growing yet coherent and calculated canon of work.

Mandy El Sayegh has built respect and admiration by stitching the line between sociopolitical messaging and the values of aesthetic integrity. She has manifested her multiple identities into a truly global art form that defies human tendencies to pigeonhole art and artists for easier consumption.

1. https://www.tatlerasia.com/lifestyle/arts/mandy-el-sayegh-performance

Despite the international print market’s remarkable buoyancy, major players in the sector continue to shoot themselves in the feet by failing to clarify what constitutes a print, an original, a multiple, and a reproduction or copy. Sounds simple enough, but digital production methods seem to have caught some people off guard and others cloaked in denial. I’ll explore the phenomenon in this article, but first a little background:

In late 2023, the annual IFPDA Fair (International Fine Print Dealers Association) took place in NYC over the final weekend of October. IFPDA has grown to become the largest and most important print fair in the world, featuring everything from classic works, master prints, and new print forms from the world’s leading modern and contemporary artists with price points to suit almost every budget.

Having also seen a few SE Asian exhibitions this past year featuring prints and multiples, I thought it would be interesting to revisit this often overlooked and under-appreciated art form that has been resilient over the past two years. As I currently market several types of work in this sector, it is important to stay abreast of the general thinking.

Fair visitors closely scrutinize fine art prints (Image © IFPDA/Art Newspaper)

Price Purgatory

Print Fairs attract new collectors to the sector (Image © IFPDA/Art Newspaper)

Okay, so we generally agree that the print sector needs some clarification regarding value setting. To accomplish this, and perhaps clarify the market for everyone involved, we first need to clarify what printing is. This is where contemporary and traditional opinions tend to diverge.

Printing - What is it? What isn’t it?

According to Schneider, “nowhere in the art business has tension been felt more acutely or more persistently than in the market for prints and multiples. Dealers in this niche still find themselves battling against the same fundamental fallacy that has bedeviled their predecessors in the West since at least the 18th century when some printers first began creating mass reproductions of pieces made for other purposes.”

“A print is not a copy of a work, it is a work itself,” adds Jenny Gibbs, the executive director of the IFPDA, when asked to name the biggest misconception about the market for prints and multiples.

My most recent exposure to the ongoing debate came when reading a forward written by a renowned local art professor for an exhibition featuring only prints by local and invited international printmakers that took place around the same time as the IFPDA fair in NYC.

As I was unable to contact the professor to discuss the matter before publication, he will remain nameless. Nevertheless, his words were emphatic and thus a must-read for all aspiring printmakers and artists. The following is an excerpt from his opening remarks for the print exhibition:

“A print, however it is produced, is considered an original artwork (albeit in multiple forms) if it has been conceived by the artist for the chosen medium. It can be derived from a painting or drawing using the artwork as source material, and can still be considered an original. However, if the work is directly transposed onto a screen, block, or plate by photographic, or other technological means that allows it to be produced in duplicate form, then this is not considered an original print but a reproduction, and should be labeled and sold as such.”

- - - - -

To clarify before going forward, Schneider, Gibbs, and many others in the print field take the approach that it is the intent of the artist that qualifies it as an original print, not the tools. For example, digital artists and photographers intend to print their creations. They use their cameras, tablets or computers to create pictures or digital images with the intent of printing or digitally displaying their original work. Likewise, screen printers create original digital plates with the intent of printing either unlimited or limited editions from their designs. The artists then decide if they want to limit the print to one original, a series of multiples, or an unlimited multiple.

Conversely, the unnamed professor also agrees that intent of the artist is key, but then he capitulates to those who to this day in 2024 remain paranoid about technology by claiming that despite the intent of the artist to produce originals, if their work passes through a secondary technology process of a screen, scan or photograph, then the work can no longer be considered an original work. Instead it is only a lesser "copy."

- - - - -

Using the professor's narrowed definition of an original print —and by introducing technology as a disqualifying factor in several cases —the renowned academic has essentially marginalized the works of hundreds of thousands of artists and photographers practicing in the following fields:

1. Digital artists, and many mixed-media artists who combine digital and analog elements in their original works.

2. Most contemporary photographers, whether they use digital files, negatives, or transparencies.

3. The majority of silkscreen printers who have been using computer processing to create digital plates to mask light-sensitive photo emulsions when creating their plates for decades.

4. Artists who employ silkscreen companies that go even one step further to create their color plates entirely by printer with no mask / emulsion / washing processes whatsoever. Examples are the RISO Goccopro line that prints plates that are ready to pull colors with plates directly printed from computer files.

Under the professor’s interpretation, the works of these artists would qualify only as reproductions, not original prints, even though the original artwork was produced first-hand by the actual artist using various input tools including drawing tablets, pens, separation software, or scanners.

- - - - -

Several years ago I forecast this impasse after equipment was developed to computerize the entire plate and print-making processes. Skeptics by this point had relented to photographs and digital files being considered originals even though the artists could essentially produce unlimited copies of them, Regardless of the copiability, the fact remains that the actual artwork is original, period. The valuation of those originals is a different issue and can fluctuate as it does with many items based on quantity produced, market acceptance, scarcity, etc.

Artists using digital tools have long battled the stigma of their work being "only" digital. This has a sore spot for almost two decades. Many have fougt back against so-called "real" artists who have employed any of the following techniques:

1. Artists who project computer images or transparencies onto a wall and then trace their projected image on a canvas taped to the wall. Julie Mehretu comes to mind as one mega artist who employs this approach, and her works are regularly sold for massive amounts at auctions. Nobody has every said that her works are not original because she used a computer for the design, nor are they less worthy because she has a team of assistants to help with her sprawling works.

2. Let's not forget Caravaggio and centuries of artists who used lightboxes hundreds of years ago to project imagery onto walls to trace.

3. Painters who copy their paintings from photographs and then use funky contraptions to auto-upscale their work mechanically. Professors still teach this trickery. Oh, the outrage.

4. Artists who create designs on computers and have other craftspersons make them for them, with little to no interaction with the artist beyond the original design. The list of artists who never touched some of their own work during production is legendary. Koons, Hirst, Warhol, etc. Some of the largest names in the historical canon of art, in other words. Why are these works not considered "reproductions" or "disqualified because they are not made directly by the hand of the artist" while digital imaging specialists are routinely rejected by galleries and collectors because they used a drawing tablet and computer screen during parts of the creation phase?

5. Artists who have zero interaction with the actual printing process, even if they designed the original sketch or plate. This is another long list of artists who make the original art and leave the screen printers to make the plates and pull the prints. The last time I checked, there are fewer professional artists who pull their own prints than there are artists who hire master printers to do it for them. (I have no beef with any of them, but I'm tired of them getting free passes in the "original print" classification.)

Perhaps it is the old-school thinking that leads Tim Schneider and many others to conclude that “to consider the works of artists merely “reproductive” rather than “original” is to deny the art world of some of the most innovative and creative artworks produced over the past 60+ years.”

I agree 100% with Schneider. While the local art professor tried to frame the argument in terms of originals and reproductions, what he was also doing was marginalizing the advancement of technology in the field of visual arts. Traditional artists have been trying to protect these crafts for decades, and gallerists have been doing likewise to protect their markets for just as long. Neither wants competition from new methods to create similar outcomes, especially those that can be produced easily, quickly, and more accurately.

I say let artists use whatever they want however they want. But what I do reject unequivocally is the hypocrisy and cronyism of people trying to thwart change.

Cases in point:

A. I know a few print artists who were accepted into the very exhibition where the art professor unilaterally pre-defined the difference between original prints and reproductive copies. These artist friends openly use computers and photographic methods to make their plates and prints, which the professor calls "mere repro copies" in most cases. Despite this, they were admitted as original prints and sold their wares in the exhibition. I say all the power to them, I love their work, but let’s be fair and apply the same rules for everyone.

B. I also know several regional artists who do most of their drawings on a computer, and then print faint back drawings to size before using carbon pencils or brushes to fill out the “original artwork.” A couple of them have even been honored with national awards… are you ready… one for original drawing and the other in a competition restricted to paintings! I was thrilled for their recognition, but when asked to clarify their workflow, both publicly denied any computer intervention and their galleries backed them up. Hard to believe this is still a thing in 2024.

I routinely see work that is at least partly produced digitally, but denial still seems to be the name of the game in some parts. I know it's not the artists, and it's likely not the gallerists in most cases. Perhaps they must conform to the conditions of their collector market?

Thousands of mixed-media artists combining elements are unjustly marginalized as "copiers"

The need to clarify the use of digital plates to make prints and/or the printing of computer files as original art are both long past the point where further explanation or justification is required. I choose to adhere to the guidelines set forth by Adam McCoy, former vice president and senior specialist of the print department for Christie’s auction house for fourteen years before moving on to head the department of prints and multiples at Artsy and then to Rago Auctions (https://www.ragoarts.com/auctions).

According to Adam McCoy, “Strictly speaking, a print is any work executed on one support with the purpose to be transferred onto another support.” Most often, the second support is paper. However, it could be a range of other materials such as aluminum, canvas, etcetera.”

Aha! No mention of technology whatsoever. Nothing is stopping the original support from being a tablet or touch screen that accepts direct input from the artist. Under this definition, all forms of screen printing also qualify as a method of producing multiple originals whereby the artist creates his work that is used to produce the screen plates that are then used to pull various colors of ink.” Again, no mention of how the plates were created because it doesn't matter in the year 2024. What makes a screenprint a screenprint is the act of pulling various colors of ink over the plates. End of story.

Some collectors will continue to refuse to buy certain types of work, but that is entirely their prerogative. This has always been the case, What’s distasteful is when art world professionals tell their collectors that something is aesthetically inferior based on antiquated notions of originality after refusing to acknowledge thirty years of technological growth in printmaking and artmaking.

Side note: One former gallery owner from New Jersey despised prints and refused to have them in her gallery even though the market was quite hot for prints from certain artists to which she had direct access. She felt prints were uncontrollable and that the market was wrought with fraud. She's not entirely wrong, but surprise, surprise: Her husband was a sculptor working in bronze who routinely oversold his limited editions. He somehow wanted to believe that he could sell as many artist proofs as he wanted even though the sculptures were registered and priced as Editions of 7 plus one AP. You can’t make this stuff up. Hypocrisy is widespread. Black, meet kettle.

David Tunick, IFPDA President and NYC gallery owner sums it up eloquently without bashing technology: “Printmaking is a different medium – just as original and just as important as paintings, drawings, and sculpture to artists like Rembrandt, Goya, Toulouse-Lautrec, Picasso, Matisse, and Warhol, to mention a tiny handful.”

In other words, using a computer or technological device at some point in the printmaking process is not the deciding factor of whether something is an original print or a copy. It’s what the artist intends to do with the original picture that makes it an original, a multiple, a limited edition, or a reproduction, NOT the tools used to make it.

To David’s list, I’ll add some contemporary names, including Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Robert Rauschenberg, Damien Hirst, John Baldessari, Julie Mehretu, Cindy Sherman, Jeff Wall, Andreas Gursky, Jeff Crewsden, Ed Ruscha, Wade Guyton, the estate of Mexican master Rufino Tamayo, and far too many mixed media artists to list who have worked with various forms of printmaking —with and without technology — at various stages of their workflow. Because of their standings in the art world, none of them were ever rejected as mere reproducers or illegitimate artists. It's time to make the same judgments for all artists, especially young emerging digital artists, regardless of prior fame.

After Rufino Tamayo died in 1991, rumors swirled that the artist pre-signed hundreds of blank lithograph sheets so that his estate

could continue to have large editions of his pictures printed post-mortem and sold as more valuable signed multiples. The allegations

were not conclusively proven, however, to this day there are pricing disparities between the different print runs of Tamayo's latter works.

For more insight about printmaking from Tim Schneider, read his comments at the Gray Market:
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/10/27/gray-market-ifpda-print-fair

Note: We were unable to establish the precise copyright holder of some of the images. If you have a claim, please advise and we will remove the image immediately.