Two Millimetres Out: Misregistration as Error or Evidence
Mateo is editioning a five-colour woodcut, 'Tidal Register', for his Scholarship Printmaking portfolio. Each sheet is 700 × 500 mm; he has three sheets of his chosen 300 gsm paper left and nine days. The third colour block is misregistered by about 2 mm on two of the three sheets, producing a pale ghost line along the left edge of the image. The ghost line is visible but not catastrophic; on one sheet it reads almost like a tide mark. Mateo's concept is about official records of sea-level rise and the impossibility of exact measurement. He had planned an edition of five; now he can produce at most three consistent prints, or lean into the misregistration as a variable edition. His teacher says Scholarship rewards 'purposeful printmaking', not perfect registration. He has one good proof and a digital file of the block, but no time to recut.
1. Should Mateo reprint, edition the three sheets as they are, or make the misregistration the concept? Give a reasoned judgement.
Read the worked answer
The concept already includes measurement error, so a 2 mm misregistration is not automatically a failure. But 'leaning in' is only convincing if the error is used systematically. Reprinting risks losing the best sheet and may not fix the block. Editioning the three as consistent ignores the ghost line and wastes the conceptual opening. The strongest judgement is a small variable edition: retain the ghost line, but make it legible by adding a deliberate second offset-perhaps a pale key line printed 2 mm out of register on purpose-so the error becomes a rule rather than an accident. Mateo should keep one proof with the original misregistration, one with the deliberate offset, and one with both, and compare them. If the deliberate offset looks forced, he should edition the three as a 'state' edition and explain the limit. The decision should be tested, not asserted.
2. How should Mateo document the decision so that the examiner sees intent rather than accident?
Read the worked answer
He should document the proofs, the registration marks, and a short decision note. The note should say what the misregistration does to the image, not just that it happened: 'The ghost line sits where a tide mark would sit, so I retained it; on the second sheet I repeated it as a printed offset to make the record's error visible.' He should photograph the block, the registration jig, and the three sheets side by side. A timeline of states-first proof, misregistered proof, deliberate offset-shows intent. The examiner needs to see that Mateo saw the error, tested it, and chose. If he claims it was planned from the start, the documentation will contradict him. Honesty about the accident is stronger than a retrospective concept. The documentation should also note the paper limit and why a variable edition was the rational response.
3. What are the risks of each option, and which risk is most productive for Scholarship?
Read the worked answer
Reprinting risks losing the best sheet, repeating the error, and spending the remaining time on a technical fix that yields no conceptual gain. Consistent editioning risks a dead edition that ignores the work's own subject, and a weaker portfolio because the decision is invisible. Variable edition risks the examiner reading it as sloppiness, and the concept becoming illustrational-'look, misregistration means error'. The most productive risk is the variable edition with a deliberate, documented rule, because it tests the concept and shows judgement under constraint. The least productive risk is pretending the accident was planned. Mateo should set a stop rule: if the deliberate offset does not read as a tide mark in the proof, he reverts to the three states and writes about the limit. That is still purposeful printmaking.