Melina Berkenwald
University of Westminster, London

Exploring the Use of Digital Technologies in Art Practice

Keywords: art, artistic processes, digital media

Introduction

At first sight, it is not easy to understand why some artists select one medium over another. Nor it is easy to identify the way in which artists engage with their materials and processes to produce works of art. On the other hand, audiences often understand that these changes of media or processes are progressive stages in the artist's career. Given the fact that we are normally presented with the 'finished work' and not with the many sketches and the work in progress that was transformed, changed and altered along the way, this is the logical development of thought.

To complete an artwork and display it effectively is not easy. The ultimate success relates as much to the creative and conceptual ideas as to the relationship that the artist establishes with his or her media, tools, materials and work processes. Particularly in the practice of painting, it is possible to identify two different but connected ways in which the work of art can be perceived as a completed or finished work. One way takes place at the studio, and refers to the quality of the finished work before it is exhibited. The second refers to the manner in which the work is displayed for the public. Although the first 'completeness' of the work does not necessarily depend on the manner of its display, one could say that any successful exhibition will depend on the quality of the work displayed, either as a finished piece or as work in progress. This means that the completeness I discuss here relates to the quality of the work and also this work suitability for a specific display. The quality of the work is therefore affected by each circumtextual frame,¹ according to the status of the chosen space, and also to the way in which the materiality of the artwork functions at each location; it can happen that a work produced with certain media can look like a finished piece in one specific context but not in another.

In relation to contemporary painting, and focusing on a small group of artists interviewed for my doctorate, I shall examine in what way it became clear that these practitioners felt that their choice of media was intricately linked to, and a key factor in, the successful completion of their work. The information uncovered elucidates some of the reasons why computers can now be found to be incorporated into a practice such as painting, that has a long tradition and a strong attachment to physical materials such as pigments, canvases and boards, and why the Internet is, nevertheless, generally rejected as a main exhibition space.

Protected play

This paper arises from my doctoral research and lengthy, open-ended interviews with twenty-three artists. The artists fell in two groups according to their use of traditional or digital media. I will mainly concentrate on the artists that employed digital media, who were invited to reflect on all aspects of their working processes, the materials and methods they employed, particularly according to the screens ² they used and the way in which they displayed their work. It is interesting to note that many of them did not initially use digital technologies within an artistic framework. Some of them, for instance, first encountered computers as part of their non-artistic jobs while other interviewees used a combination of media throughout their practice, which makes their use of digital media a predictable, if not necessarily intentional outcome. Only four artists from this group of eleven practitioners, mostly young, had an a priori interest in the digital medium. I should also point out that the practitioners I mention here started to use digital technologies after having worked with traditional media. This appears to be related directly to the specific background of each artist and to the practices and media supported by the institutions where they studied or worked.³ Even when the social framework in which these artists worked indicated that they would probably start using digital media in a non-artistic environment⁴ or situation, the significance of this framework remained outside of, and separated from, the main triggers that eventually led the artists to experiment with new technology.

So, why did these artists turn to digital media? What problems were they experiencing with traditional media? Two interrelated factors seem to have determined this change: Dissatisfaction with their existing work and the medium employed, and a spontaneous curiosity and playful attitude that stimulated their need to try new media and materials. These two reasons worked together, the former often inducing the latter. The environment or social framework could also be considered as a third factor that could have facilitated this change. It is important however, to highlight that I found a distinctive attitude that I have identified as 'playful' in these practitioners, in contrast to the second group of interviewees who employ traditional media.⁵ These artists employing traditional media used what I feel could be defined as a 'linear process'. This is a process composed by a sequence of defined stages (Fig. 1), which follow each other in an A to Z progression. More importantly, this is a type of work process that these artists felt would guarantee the successful completion of their paintings. In contrast, a more experimental attitude towards the production of the work, that could be described as 'protected playing' characterises the artists using digital media. For them, the use of linear strategy is not even an option because they do not wish to define the progress of the work in advance. As a natural progression, this work process also touches on the concept of completion with relation to the work, and influences the choice of digital technologies in its production.

Fig. 1. A page from Gillian Leigh's sketchbook, an artist employing traditional media, exemplifying how this artist plans her work. ⁶

Perfection, spontaneity and mistakes

One case that I would like to mention from my fieldwork articulated this matter, highlighting why traditional media might become problematic for some artists and also the way in which digital technologies might resolve this problem. When James Aldrich started using digital media at his paid job, he was just playing and having fun making small images on a computer. In contrast, he was struggling with his painting because he was not finding himself able to finish them, particularly because he 'always wanted to push things a little bit further and [he] would end up ruining the picture.'⁷ The process of being able to 'save' an image on a computer at any point of its production resolved part of his problem, as it enabled him to have access to different stages of the production of the work and to recall any of these instances as a final image. This is how he described this matter:

I would always push the painting that much forward that I nearly always ended up losing everything I had. So that was really what was getting me extremely frustrated with my painting. And all of a sudden I could save my image on this computer and all the worry of spoiling what you had went out the window. Because you could pursue the work to your personal intent, and if you pushed it too far and overworked it you could go back a stage, to whatever stage, and continue to a point where things where going well.⁸

Fiona Hawthorne, another artist I interviewed is not able to use a planned or linear process either. Unlike the previous case, this is not due to being a perfectionist but because this practitioner intends her work to be flexible and loose, which demands a more spontaneous working method that does not overwork the final painting. This artist stated that she dislikes her work when it is over-elaborated, which occurs when the elements composing the image are too tight, meaning that the work often looks too laboured and lacks freedom. By contrast, she finds that 'with the computer you can undo until you haven't overworked the image'.⁹ This implies that she can 'decide' from a series of stages when the work is completed, even if she has to go back to a previous stage of its production. I should point out that although it is possible to use a planned and linear method to achieve a spontaneous process and final image, it is probably more difficult to obtain. Moreover, digital media enables this artist to work with a certain freedom because she knows in advance that she can recall all previous stages, can start all over again without having spoiled materials and she can delete whatever she did without leaving traces behind.

Fig. 2. The work (digital printout) of Bob Matthews, an artist employing digital media. ¹⁰

These examples indicate that the problem of 'finishing a work', which is experienced by artists from both groups (Figs. 2 and 3), does not relate to a technical inability or incapacity to end the work, but to a difficulty in deciding when to stop working and to a search for a specific aesthetic for the work. Therefore the issue at stake is the 'overdoing' of a work. Sometimes because the artist is a perfectionist and other times because the practitioner does not correctly identify (or just does not know) when the work is concluded. A second problem is the way in which each practitioner deals with mistakes/accidents,¹¹ which directly affects the type of process each artist uses. Some practitioners using digital media feel that if they employed traditional means together with the type of spontaneous (or unplanned) process that they use with the computer, the successful completion of their work would be difficult to obtain. They would either have to sacrifice their spontaneous process, or they would have to suffer the cost of a potential loss of time, materials and money due to the high possibility of ruining their work. Therefore, the possibility of saving an image and of correcting mistakes becomes especially useful for those artists who aim to achieve perfection and feel the need to change things many times.

Fig. 3. The work of Edward Harper, an artist employing traditional media (acrylic on canvas). ¹² Comparing this work to the one in Fig. 2, it is possible to observe that artists can aim to achieve similar results even when they employ different media.

Access to the work

Image making involves risks whatever the medium employed. With traditional media, these risks mainly relate to the impossibility of correcting technical mistakes because it is not possible to go back in time and to fix errors that were done. It is possible to correct mistakes in other ways but not by going backwards. By contrast, digital media seems to play with time and enable a greater control over the work because any stage of the making of the image can be recalled, redone or undone. Any past stage of the work can become its present and therefore the changes that were done could be erased. 'Back to the future' is brought to life in the digital process. In addition, as it is possible to redo or retrieve elements and actions that were erased during the process, this allows the practitioner to have a total freedom of action that welcomes risks, doubts, trials and errors. Risks, because instances of the artwork can be recalled. Doubts, because the artist can observe these many stages that made the artwork, one by one, and take time to choose from the possible options offered by a temporal deconstruction of the image.

Access to the time-line of the work is possible because of the way in which digital technology works, the function of its memory and the binary code that constructs an image without using physical materials. The digital image is only information, which is one reason why it can be recorded and saved at any stage and many times. The possibility of 'saving' an image should not be taken for granted as it implies the protection of the final work and also the protection of the various processes and moments that created it. Saving the image is both its control and its protection.¹³

There is another way in which the practitioner has power over the temporal dimension of the work during the making of the image. Digital media do not need the preparation and care that physical materials do. For example, digital media provide the artist with an infinite number of tools and materials that do not run out, dry up, get worn out or dirty. This is one reason why the time allocated to the making of the work is not interrupted by breaks that refer to the preparation and maintenance of traditional media, or their limited quantity. For instance, cleaning brushes to use a fresh clean colour 'during' the working process can break up the rhythm in which the artist works. Thus, in some cases, dissatisfaction with traditional painting included the physical media the practice demands, such as the need for a canvas and all the paraphernalia of painting.

You need to get all the materials. You get your hands dirty. You usually do need a lot of space. And you tend to be restricted to what that media could do for you. You can make a splash or you can be very precise. There are physical restrictions also, because you need an area where you can splash; you don't want to worry about the carpet or your environment and things like that. And I was more interested in getting things smaller and more compact and more manageable. And sometimes you just need to say to yourself: this is physically not the right medium for you.¹⁴

Together with the manipulation of the 'history' of the work due to the control of its chronology, there is a second way of controlling the image which is via access to its spatial dimension that implies the control of its composition. This is a specific quality of the virtual tools and materials of the technology, which relate to the fact that they do not need to occupy a permanent space and, if they do, they can be removed from it without leaving a trace. Therefore, the whole screen can contain many inner windows showing small pieces of the work, individual layers of the image or the whole image at one specific stage of its production. These stages can help in constructing and deconstructing (and also in understanding) the final work.

The artist can also work in and out of the 'frame' and surface where the image is being produced. Frames can be broken, overlapped, invaded and rebuilt because the making of one work often involves the development of many sub-images on different screens (or windows) some of which are available for future work. At any stage of the work process the artist can change the scale of the work on the screen, even that which it will have in its final output either at any time of its making or after the work has been finished.¹⁵ On the other hand, if an artist working with traditional media wishes to change the scale of a canvas it would have to be redone all over again.

Summarising, it is in this sense that the playful process of these artists using the computer can be considered to be more relaxed, non-linear and less planned when compared to the characteristics of artists working with traditional media; the digital practitioner's type of work process can be characterised as a 'protected play' because the work's history can be saved at any point, as a 'flexible method' because the image can be accessed, and as a more 'spontaneous activity' because of the freedom the process gives to the artist.

Hence, although some artists have a work process that could be said to relate to a playful attitude, this should not imply that there are no problems in the digital domain or that to compare their work processes to a playful game is the best and only metaphor that can be used. Instead, and according to my fieldwork results, the digital artist is also caught between what s/he wants to make and the restrictions of the technology, such as the memory of the computer, the size of the file and the printer's capabilities. I should point out that the practitioners I talked to did not complain about this situation. Instead, they consciously accepted this given quality of their chosen medium. One characteristic in particular helped them to overcome some of these technical restrictions, or to think about them positively, and this was the large selection of choices on offer from the technology in terms of image manipulation.

For example, even when scale is restricted according to the size of the file and to the capability of the printer, the practitioner has many choices because the same work can be printed in many sizes, in different formats, in numerous versions and on different surfaces, so that malleability becomes variability.¹⁶ I am not implying here that traditional media do not offer a range of options to the artist but that they are different. The digital medium has some advantages due to its type of immaterial physicality (or insubstantiality), even when physicality is often experienced as a loss. In contrast, the physicality of traditional media implies that many of the decisions that are made cannot be changed¹⁷ and that there are material limitations.¹⁸ As a result of this, the artist using traditional media has a considerably reduced number of options. But, this range of choices offered by digital media only becomes an advantage if the artist knows what s/he wants to do with them. If this is not the case, doubts can begin to equal the almost infinite quantity of available choices, which is why some artists using digital media find finishing their pieces to be quite a challenge.

Screen, space and palimpsest

There are technological elements connected to the visual display unit that favour this playful and exploratory attitude referred to before. A material canvas is a 'screen' in which flatness and lightness are qualities of the surface regardless of the materials and the media that the practitioner employs, but the computer monitor has no specific inner qualities as an independent surface. Instead, it offers what could be defined as 'virtual' processes. It includes materials that favour the use of a playful attitude in the making of the work, in the sense that it is possible to produce work and explore new ideas simultaneously, without losing anything but time and expectations. As I said, digital processes, tools and materials do not exist in the physical dimension to which we are accustomed. Instead, the artist is presented with a set of menus, operations and tool bars or palettes that are displayed on the computer screen in which the new image will be made; a virtual answer to the so-called drawing area or 'canvas'.¹⁹

Another explanation could be that digital tools and materials are in a sense 'compressed' in the computer and accessed via their iconic representation on the screen. The central processing unit contains most materials and tools that the practitioner needs, and the computer screen enables a dialogue between the software and the artist: the practitioner has access to tools, materials and processes that are enabled by the technology only because the screen is an 'interface' that mediates between them. The visual display unit is therefore transformed into a studio that contains and provides everything that is needed to develop and produce an artwork, including the artwork itself during display. Like Manovich puts it, the 'same machine is both showroom and factory […]'.²⁰ The visual display unit is therefore not only a surface upon which to work but also a workspace. It is a studio, an editing forum, a surface and a brush, as much as it is a potential location to display a final painting.

The way in which some artists describe their perception of the visual display unit indicates why they do not use it to display two-dimensional static images that relate to painting. Instead, they mostly conceive of the visual display unit as a space, a mirror to show an idea, a studio in which to work or even a temporary canvas. Accordingly, they generally decide to print their work. Other artists also experienced problems in displaying their works on the computer screen, because of what they referred to as its 'technological atmosphere', which did not fit with the artist's work and because the use of the computer screen solely to display one still image was seen to be somewhat pointless.

Even when I asked one artist who produces net art if he thought that his Internet projects were contained by the monitor, he denied the possibility of thinking of the computer screen as a stable location for his work. He stated that he thinks that his net art is in two places at the same time: under the surface of the computer screen but also remote, in the United States, where his server is based (Fig. 4). ²¹ Being 'elsewhere' and 'remote' appears to be a key characteristic of net art, which directly fits the impermanent quality of the visual display unit. What starts to emerge from this analysis is that notions addressing the place where the work resides – which could be taken as the screen and the frame of reference of the work – start to be devalued and to lose importance in the digital domain. New concepts, such as being in many places at the same time and belonging to many viewers, are required, especially with net art that is exclusively exhibited online.

Fig. 4. Nick Crowe's net art project.

The playful and exploratory attitude of the artists is favoured therefore by many elements: the perception of the monitor as a studio, its spatial quality, the compression of digital tools, but in particular, by what I call the 'non-palimpsest' quality of this screen that mostly favours the deconstruction and reconstruction of the image and its impermanent existence on the computer. This quality refers to the possibility of deleting stages of the work process without leaving traces behind, to a screen that can completely hide mistakes, corrections or previous layers. It is also possible to compare the visual display unit to a 'magic tablet' thanks to its capacity for holding and erasing layers of information without necessarily manifesting them on its physicality or on the final work. On the other hand, a physically material screen like a canvas always works as a 'palimpsest'. A palimpsest being defined as 'A written document, typically on vellum or parchment, that has been written upon several times, often with remnants of earlier, imperfectly erased writing still visible, remnants of this kind being a major source for the recovery of lost literary works of classical antiquity'. ²²

It is explicit that the material canvas as a support and surface is an ideal screen to show the decisions and changes that an artist has made. This guarantees the singularity, or uniqueness of the work, an option that does not exist with digital media. Why? Because like an old palimpsest, a canvas will retain the changes carried out by the artist, even when new layers of material seem to hide them (Fig. 5). In other words, what has been scraped away from the surface is, nevertheless, retained as a mark on that screen as much as that which is lying on it.

Fig. 5. Vanessa Jackson's painting, produced with traditional media, shows different layers of paint used to construct the final work. ²³

Another key definition of a palimpsest obtained from the Internet, refers to it as an 'object, space or area that reflects its history'. ²⁴ It is interesting that artists working with digital media can access and visualise the whole 'history' of their work during the work process, that is, each of the individual stages that created the finished work. However, the visual display unit will hide these layers and stages (and that history) when the final image is displayed or printed out. A canvas, instead, will show these stages (but as one single surface), even when the artist might intend to hide them. It does not allow their complete access during the process of the work, nor their disappearance (or erasure), because a material surface will always disclose its own history either by the transparency of the layers that construct the painting or by the use of X-rays.

Display and control

Most images, especially those that have gained approved status as paintings, are two-dimensional objects that are unique and singular. Despite their limited existence because of their materiality, they have a durable quality that makes them available to the eye of the viewer without the need of a mediating mechanism for display. A traditional painting, therefore, has a material presence as an object that is impossible to obtain due to the impermanent quality of the computer screen. I also think that even if the monitor were used as a permanent screen, its context and our understanding of its functionality would go against the traditional permanence of paintings. This is why for still images the visual display unit seems to be a space to view the image while making it but not to display it to the audience. Yet, strictly speaking, digital images can be characterized as even more permanent than canvas in some ways, in that in themselves they do not alter at all, and they lack the aging quality typical of physical materials that may be durable but not permanent. Paradoxically, the identical and stable electronic code that builds up a digital image can work against the qualities that have been traditionally valued in the artistic world and, together with the impermanent quality of the visual display unit, often makes it impossible for the digital image to gain a status that relates to the tradition of painting.

All digital artists that I interviewed who make still images, apart from those who make art especially for the Internet, never considered the image as finished while actually on screen. They always printed out their work, which is to say that they took the image out of the computer to materialise it. So that ultimately, the image is conceived in order to be reproduced and reworked, not necessarily because the practitioner wants it to become a reproduction but because as a matter of fact it is mainly through printing techniques that the image can achieve an accepted corporeal and durable existence.²⁵ By 'accepted', I mean in the sense that this type of physicality fits in with social and artistic norms of our time, still linked as they are to the tradition of the arts, but this could change in the future.

Yet, regardless of what surface the image will be ultimately printed on, no screen or area replaces the unique role that the visual display unit has in the digital domain. The clear identity that the computer screen gives to digital work should not be overshadowed by those elements that do not seem to suit the art market or individual preferences.²⁶ However, I think that it is likely that new displays will appear and change this situation. There already are new developments with visual display and projection units. So it is relevant that in relation to digital prints and digital paintings, technological developments will be particularly decisive, especially if they start to address the arts and still imagery, giving rise to specific display systems for static images.

A new type of control, or lack of, over the artwork is, in my opinion, what really conditions the use of the computer screen and the Internet as an exhibiting space. The monitor and the Internet are neither physically nor conceptually stable at the moment. There are, in fact, physical qualities of the ordinary computer screen, like flickering light, that are not yet able to compete with the stillness and stability of traditional painting required for detailed observation. Conceptually, monitors are not stable either, as new screens and methods of display are continually being developed. This benefits the arts, but at the same time creates instability in user's equipment. This is seen, for example, in the multitude of differences between monitors and the variability of their settings, which imply that the same image can change according to the monitor. In other words, each screen has an individual quality (that also address its user) that depends on its age, image resolution, type, make and scale, which can affect the precision and quality of its display. In this way control over the image is partially removed from the hands of the artist.

The lack of control over the display of the work is a major factor in understanding the logic of digital technology. On one hand, it opens the possibility for controlling the progress/ process of the artwork, while on the other it introduces new ways of losing control, especially in relation to its display and reception.²⁷ This is why it is possible to argue that digital media distribute the roles of the practitioner, of the spectator and of the audience in a more equitable way than traditional media, not only because the technology offers a different kind of art as result.

The need to control the final work²⁸ was a theme that recurred in most interviews, and was a common issue for artists in both groups. It was discussed by the artists using traditional media as a reason for their rejection of the Internet, and reappeared again in interviews with artists working with digital media for very similar reasons. I would like to point out that those artists that worked on specific projects for the Internet had a different perspective. They felt that a lack of control over the work was neither a problem nor an advantage, but a prerequisite for the artist that decides to fully embrace the digital technology. In effect, the lack of control over the way in which works are observed on the Internet was one significant reason why this space has not attracted the work of more artists producing paintings.

This perceived unsuitability of the visual display unit (Fig. 6) could also be linked to its explicit lack of neutrality as an exhibition screen and space, which connected to the key issue of giving up control. There are a number of ways in which the monitor's lack of neutrality differs from the subtler one characterising an art gallery or a museum. One relates to the fact that an image usually shares the computer screen with a number of other windows, frames and images. Even if there are no other windows opened, there is usually a frame in the form of a task bar or a graphic sign that enables the user to access the image. In contrast, white galleries often provide an impression of neutrality because of their sombre aspect and their exclusive function within the arts. This supposed neutrality expressed behind the 'tidiness' of many galleries and museums is completely shattered when computers are in the user's home or place of work. Most of these locations contain a variety of elements that interact with the monitor and do not provide, or give the impression of, a neutral background.

Fig. 6. A computer screen depicted by the artist Matt Garret employing digital media. ²⁹

Neutrality is also lost in relation to the observation of an image online.³⁰ The browser that enables its display sometimes brings with it commercial adverts, animations and texts that have no connection to the work exhibited. The most frequent solution is to enclose the image in a defined frame, which partially disconnects it from the busy activity on the rest of this screen. A small and defined frame seems to work better than to cover the whole screen with an image. Moreover, each viewer might use a particular browser that imposes different conditions on the image both in terms of the surrounding publicity and image quality.

In this respect some artists feel that to exhibit work on the net can be frustrating for artists who want to control the conditions of observation of their work and who are accustomed to more controlled environments such as galleries or studios. However, they also stated, that in reality, they are aware that it is not possible to totally control the observation of the work in any space. Even a work of art produced with paint on canvas will vary according to the environment. For example, the type of lighting available on the exhibiting space, the reputation of the gallery and the artist, as well as other factors that relate to the politics of framing surrounding a work of art. There is also the human element. Total control over the reception of art is impossible because viewing experiences are intrinsically individual and personal, regardless of the media used.

In conclusion, it is apparent that to achieve total control over an image, either during its production or observation, is impossible. Traditional media give greater control to some artists after the work has been produced, whereas digital media enable some practitioners to develop free working processes that rely on the control of the image during its production. The matters discussed here are therefore relevant variables that affect the way in which artists produce work and can be considered significant elements in defining the media and the work process that each artist selects. The intention of this paper was therefore to discuss matters, as my research has indicated, are major concerns for artists in relation to the crucial role that work processes, media and exhibition spaces have in their creative work and in the ultimate completion and success of their artistic production.

November 2002

Notes

1. MacLachlan, G. & Reid, I. (1994) Framing and Interpretation. p.31. Australia: Melbourne University Press.

2. A screen is taken to mean a surface, an area or a space in which a visual image is produced and/or exhibited.

3. Most artists from this group completed their BA and/or MA studies at art colleges.

4. By environment I mean the society and general context in which the artist lived and lives, which influences personal experiences, possibilities and access to technology.

5. The second group of interviewees of my fieldwork is composed of twelve artists. Although some of them make use of digital technologies during part of their processes, the final work is produced by hand and with traditional media, usually with acrylic or oil on canvas.

6. Gillian Leigh. Interview date: 04-08-00.

7. James Aldrich. Interview date: 31-08-00.

8. James Aldrich. Interview date: 31-08-00.

9. Fiona Hawthorne. Interview date: 14-11-00.

10. Bob Matthews. Interview date: 02-10-00.

11. According to my findings there were two types of very different mistakes: a technical mistake that can easily ruin the work, and a type of mistake that is unexpected and welcomed, like an accident and that seems to bring richness and uniqueness to the work (particularly when artists employ a handmade work process). These mistakes can be compared to the artistic concept of the pentimenti, an Italian term meaning repentance, that refers to the corrections that the artist did to a painting during its production. (Doyle, N. Glossary of Visual Art Terms. http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/glossary. 22-08-2002). This is a main topic that emerged from my research.

12. Edward Harper. Interview date: 25-09-00.

13. I should add that with the same flexibility in which a digital image can be saved it could also be lost if, for instance, a wrong command is pressed or if there is a computer virus that corrupts the file; digitalisation does not guarantee durability.

14. David Bickerstaff. Interview date: 08-11-00.

15. However, these changes depend on the size of the file and the RAM memory of the computer, together with the general capabilities of the computer, the printer and other peripherals.

16. Manovich, L. (2001) The Language of New Media, p.133f. Cambridge Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press.

17. E.g. the scale of the work.

18. E.g. the limited number of layers before the paint starts cracking.

19.Spalter, A. M. (1999) The Computer in the Visual Arts, p. 48f. United States of America: Addison-Wesley Longman Inc.

20. Manovich, L. (2001) The Language of New Media, p. 37f . Cambridge Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press.

21. Nick Crowe. Interview date 28-11-00.

22. Morris, E. (1969) The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language. New York, Boston: American Heritage Publishing Company and Houghton Mifflin Company.

23. Work from Vanessa Jackson. Interview date: 16-03-01.

24. My emphasis, www.dictionary.com (17-04-02).

25. Another way in which artists give material presence to a digital image is by reproducing it manually, copying it by hand.

26. E.g. flickering light, scale.

27. I should point out that, although many artists employing digital media might have more control over their work during its production, this is not always the case. For example, the level of technical expertise can become a problem that affects the control over the production of the work. The machine is only as good as its user.

28. Pearson, J. (1990) 'The Politics of Framing in the Late Nineteenth Century'. Mosaic 23, 1.

29. Matt Garret. Interview Date: 10-11-00.

30. Manovich, L. (2001) The Language of New Media, p. 127f. Cambridge Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press.