I began to experiment with this process in earnest, making both test prints as well as producing small studies. These test prints were invaluable, creating a resource of a wide variety of effective methods and effects. I established an archive of this information, which I have continued to develop over the course of my research (Figures 34, 35).
I recorded these variables methodically, documenting the ways each one affected the
transference of the paint from the plate and the resulting image. These tests involved varying the strength and type of Gum Arabic used, the type of paper, paint brands, paint pigments and the amount of time the paint was left on the plate. For instance, many of the pre-made solutions of Gum Arabic available on the market are used for lithography and are quite dark in colour and have a tacky consistency. These solutions caused stains and discolouration in the transferred image, particularly where the paper showed through. I therefore sourced a very refined Gum Arabic kibble that was pale in colour and started making my own saturated solutions of Gum Arabic. When diluted, this kind of Gum Arabic was effectively transparent. It caused no staining and additionally was not as sticky, so when lifting the image from the plate the paper did not tear.
Additionally, I noted the textures that could be produced by different application methods: dampness of the paper, dampness of the plate, paper type and the pressure of the press. Through these experiments I began to identify and manipulate the factors that could produce a variety of textures and marks to build into small works (Figure 36).
Up until this time, I had only a limited experience working with watercolour and gouache. I soon recognised that the way the paint interacted with the plastic plate was totally different from working directly onto paper. Unlike paper, the plastic sheet was non-absorbent.
Therefore a variety of factors could influence how the paint went onto the surface of the plate, creating a range of textures.
Figure 34. Archive gouache monotype sample, (2015). The text swatch shows how textures can vary with colour within a single brand of paint.
Figure 35. Archive watercolour monotype sample, (2015). This swatch shows how textures can vary with application. Within each colour sample, the dense colour at the bottom is over-painted several times. The top of each square has a
Figure 36. Archive monotype samples, (2015). These samples show a variety of textures from different paint brands, paper types, application methods and colours.
These factors included paint consistency, paint thickness, paint dilution with water, paint brand, speed of delivery, whether the paint was gouache or watercolour or a mixture of both. For example, a faster application of paint to the plastic tended to break the surface tension of the water in the paint, and the paint would bubble or wrinkle. Likewise, thin paint produced a variety of watery marks that would pool (Figure 37). If paint was applied slowly to a small surface area, the surface tension did not break so quickly, and the paint could be delivered more densely or flatly (Figure 38). Thick paint and over-painting areas could allow for the texture of the brush mark to become more evident. Certain colours dried out very quickly and tended to crack, causing an irregular transfer to the paper. Particular brands, or even particular colours within brands, lifted off the plate in irregular ways, possibly due to the amount of binders or driers in the paint (Figure 39).
Originally, I had pursued monotypes in part for how quickly I could make the images. But now that I had gained some promising results and become more familiar with the nuances of the process, I wanted more time to paint on the plate surface to see how far I could extend my working knowledge of the materials and technique, while increasing the scale of the work and the detail contained within it.
Another advantage the watercolour monotype technique offered was that it allowed more time to work on the plate, as the dried watercolour paint could be reactivated with damp paper. Most references and examples of watercolour monotypes that I found still approached the technique with the same quickness of delivery as oil monotype approaches, without any extended time placed on the painting phase.
Following the direction outlined in Wisneski’s technical manual179 and early test prints,
I determined that I could leave the paint on the plate for several days before printing. However, I decided to broaden these experiments to ascertain exactly how long the paint could be left on the plate before printing. Through these trials I established that I could leave the paint on the plate for several weeks, although after that period the resulting prints were often uneven, and in places some areas of paint started adhering or setting to the plastic and would not lift off. I concluded that I did not have an indefinite window, but rather a timeframe of several weeks in which to execute the painted image.
Figure 37. Where ever you go there you are, (2014-15), detail.
This durational shift from a traditionally quick monotype methodology to one where an extended amount of time is spent on the painting phase was a significant advancement of my research. This method allowed me to create intensely detailed works, which, combined with the textures of the monotype process, formed images that had more complex spatial relationships and varied surface qualities. This amalgamation of a traditional approach to watercolour monotype with an extended painting phase, therefore helped me to formulate a unique, hybrid watercolour/monotype technique: a contemporary hybrid medium.