Introduction Background Committee Theme Schedule Presenters Exhibitions Hotel Transportation Resources Registration

Summary of Discussion Topics from Plenary Sessions

Thursday September 8, 2005, 9:00-10:00

RUTH WEISBERG

• Discipline-based aesthetic - Function, Process, Materials (history, public/private, reproducibility, scale, economy, seriality)
• Asked about Benjamin's concept of the withering aura?
• Post Modernism as anti-discipline based
• Today art is more interdisciplinary, international and technologically based
• Issue of quality with chnages in technology?
• What are the losses that result from technology (less human or aesthetically driven)?

HUGH MERRILL

• Is there a syntax for digital prints?
• The social role of the artist/printmaker is very important.  What are the social issues that printmakers should address?  What art would Käthe Kollwitz make if she were alive today?

STEPHEN HOSKINS

• Stated that there are two areas of digital (screen/projection or the printed artifact). Digital may be too young to have a syntax at this stage.

MARK PASCALE

• Talked about a rchitecture and prints, issues of scale, and projection,

BEAUVAIS LYONS

• Mentioned Benjamin's concept of exhibition value vs. ritual value. made the point that the book arts session pointed to a form of the print that combines both the multiple (exhibition value) and a personal scale (ritual value) of engagement.

BETH GRABOWSKI

• Syntax of the digital, agrees with the points Hoskins makes. Regarding the withering of the aura – Benjamin set up Greenberg to remove the subjective in art.  Also, Kollwitz would still be making prints today.

STEPHEN HOSKINS

• We will still make artifacts, and they will have their own history.

PAUL COLDWELL

• Artists are increasingly opportunists rather than studio based, which creates a fluid approach to mediums.
• There is a huge change regarding the digital – that reduces the mark to computer code.
• We need to be mindful that digital technologies exclude as many people as they include.

Friday September 9th, 13:30-15:00

DOMINIC THORBURN

• Talked about the digital divide between wealthy and developing countries.
• Stressed the mobility of prints - and their international scope.

KRZYSTOF MOLENDA - MIREK PAWLOWSKI

• Talked about the importance of the Polish-German relationship.
• Talked about the issue of Poland as a “exotic” location.
• Noted that they do not have a tradition or experience in organizing conferences in the arts such as this one.

DOMINIC THORBURN

• Conference hosts have flexibility to structure the conference in a way that is appropriate to their location/culture.

BEAUVAIS LYONS

• Strength of the National Polish Student Biennial Exhibition at the Stary Browar Gallery – delegates might consider how such a show would look from your own country.

KARI LAITINEN

• Discussed the influence of new technologies on society – taking a historical perspective. Consider the social impact of lithography when it was invented.

EVA PIETZCKER

• Raised the issue of English language comprehension. Noted that there is a divide between native-English-speakers and delegates for whom English is not their first language. Recommended that speakers should talk more slowly, and clearly.

GRAZYNAS HALASA

• Asked if being in a museum and seeing historical prints is important to contemporary artists.

DOMINIC THORBURN

• Commends the National Museum of Poznan on the quality of the exhibitions.

RICHARD NOYCE

• Also found the student work very extraordinary.  Was interested in the relationship between the faculty and the students. Also felt it was very important to hold this conference in the museum.

PAUL COLDWELL

• Since this is the 4th IMPACT – should aspects of the conference structure be reviewed and changed. There are some speakers who have been regulars – but we might strive to bring in new people into the discourse. There should be more time allocated to discussion time.

STEPHEN HOSKINS      

• Agrees, but talked about how to balance depth of presentations with broadened participation.  Pointed to the challenges of time allocation with any conference.

BEAUVAIS LYONS      

• While the conference was promoted through postcards and the web site, Polish and German participation could have been much higher. One obsticle we faced is that Polish and German artists are not accustomed to paying for conferences.

HUGH MERRILL

• We are doing lots of things correctly because it is based on maintaining a community. We are an inclusive community, whereas the art world is very exclusive. 

XENOPHONE SACHINIS:

• Announced that today his academy in Greece signed a linkage agreement with ASP Poznan. Credited the conference with helping to make this possible.

DOMINIC THORBURN

• Asked are we doing to foster student participation in the conference. Advocated for more student participation in future conferences.

RICHARD KILPERT

• Addressed ways that printmaking instruction have evolved, and that the conference can play a critical role in this process.

DANIEL HEYMAN

• Expressed concern with syntax and semantics of the print creates a limited dialogue.

STEPHEN HOSKINS

• Observed that we have seen a progression of the dialogue and various sub-communities within the IMPACT conference have formed over time.

DONIMIC THORBURN

• The conferences offer people different experiences, from lectures and panels to demos and exhibitions.

PAUL COLDWELL

• Just because we are printmakers, that may not mean we agree with one another. Differences of opinion are needed and important.

MIREK PAWLOWSKI

• Raised the issue of exhibitions versus demonstrations to present printmaking, stating that exhibitions have a greater potential to address theoretical issues artists are concerned with.  We need to involve curators and critics more in the conference.

HUGH MERRILL

• Agrees that inclusion is the most important thing for us.

DANIEL HEYMAN

• Asked if Lucian Freud came to IMPACT, would he talk about himself as an artist or a printmaker?

GUTTMAN

• Printmaking needs conferences such as IMPACT. Creative process needs to be discussed more. We should be sitting in a circle – and wants more interactive events between delegates. More informal activities would be useful.

PETER FORD

• Has only attended IMPACT 1 in Bristol and this conference. Made the case that these are academic events, organized by professors in universities. We should think about ways of organizing conferences in ways that address the needs of non-academics. Also noted that accoustics is sometimes a problem in the rooms where sessions were held.

STEPHEN HOSKINS

• IMPACT originally stood for: International Multi-disciplinary Print Art Craft & Technology, which is not limited to just the print.

JUSTIN DIGGLE

• Advocated for more projects (exhibitions, portfolios, etc) to come out of this conference.

BEAUVAIS LYONS

• The web site and the list-server could be tools to help foster projects that start at one conference and culminate at the next conference. He encouraged delegates to consider ways that the conference can have an after-life through the web.

DOMINIC THORBURN

• At the next conference maybe we should have some form of “speed dating” to foster collaborative projects and artistic relationship between the delegates.  The published proceedings serve as a way to give the conference greater impact.  Noted that the conference proceedings from IMPACT 3 in Cape Town are now posted on the web.

STEPHEN HOSKINS

• The next IMPACT conference may be at Tallin, Estonia.

HUGH MERRILL

• This conference and Southern Graphics Council conferences are basically and art conference, not just printmaking conferences. This always needs to be stressed.

GUTTMAN

• We need to stress the social role of the medium more.