It was discovered, at the turn of the 19th century, that it was the mercury in the hat-making profession that caused madness amongst its workers. When safer methods were developed to replace the toxic traditional hat-making processes, there were those "Mad Hatters" who threw their arms up in anger at the thought of changing the way that hats had been made for centuries. They were worried that hat making would die out and that a great tradition would be lost. Although they were "mad," they were worried more about the change without considering the positive impact that change would have on the hat-making industry. We still have hats today and the toxic tradition of the hat maker is but a part of the history of that craft. This is technical evolution fueled by the necessity to work in a safer manner. This is progress.

It is easy for us to step back as 21st century spectators and ridicule the "mad hatters" of the past for their folly. Yet in printmaking world we have a pervasive resistance to change in much the same way that the hat-making industry had 200 years ago. It is difficult to understand why there is resistance to non-toxic printmaking as it presents superior technical alternatives to traditional techniques. It is much like comparing the qualities of an old mechanical typewriter to that of the latest Macintosh computer. It is also, in most instances, more cost effective while employing safer techniques that will not impose the negative health consequences suffered from traditional printmaking techniques. Non-toxic printmaking is far more user friendly, making artists more productive while saving them lots of money on materials and medical bills. Educational institutions are being sued for millions of dollars because of adverse health effects suffered by students mainly due to uninformed, negligent printmaking faculty who refused to 'change' and progress, who are blind and ignorant to the vast changes occurring within printmaking. So why is there any resistance at all to non-toxic printmaking? At least mercury poisoning explained the "mad hatters" resistance to change.

Back in the late 80's I became very ill every time I ventured into a traditional printmaking studio. There was no mystery as to why I got so sick. The fumes and solvent vapors I would breathe had a detrimental effects on my body. The real mystery was what I was going to do with my career. At that point I had dedicated about a decade to my profession as a printmaker and teacher. The medical profession only gave me two alternatives; either suffer the dire consequences of persisting on exposing my body to the toxins of traditional printmaking or give up the profession.

At this point I decided to undertake my Masters degree at New York University, majoring in studio art. To escape the toxic consequences of traditional printmaking, I concentrated my graduate studies on sculpture, drawing, photography and painting.

Escaping from traditional printmaking allowed my body to recover but eventually the reality of my chosen profession caught up with me when I was appointed as a drawing and printmaking teacher in Canada. Once again I was faced with the negative health consequences as I was back to teaching toxic printmaking in a normal traditional studio. Faced with the old health survival dilemma again I elected a new alternative which was to research and use only printmaking techniques with no or low toxic consequences.

During this period of researching historical intaglio techniques, photogravure was the technique that caught my greatest attention. Unfortunately, this technique was almost impossible to implement in the dry Northern Western Canadian climate where I was teaching. It was from these initial investigations of photogravure that I developed the gelatin based "Howard Process" in 1989. This process displayed attributes of both photogravure and photo etching on the one plate. The lighter end of the tonal scale had the distinctive dot structure of photo etching, and the darker end of the scale resembled the continuous tone qualities of photogravure, despite that fact that a halftone was used to make the plate.

Interest in the "Howard Process" escalated to the point where a book was warranted. During the process of writing a book on the "Howard Process," it occurred to me to extend my research to include other intaglio processes. At that time, and to my knowledge, I was the only person in the world engaged in such extensive research. I was thrust into a chemistry world where I was unprepared. I approached research tasks with little clue to solid research methodology. Consequently I put much creativity and rethinking energy into applied non-toxic intaglio research. This was a lengthy and complicated pursuit which culminated in my 1991 publication "Safe Photo Etching for Photographers and Artists." This was not only the first book of its type to be published on safer intaglio techniques, but also it shattered the popular belief that intaglio printmaking was a definitive or 'Complete' discipline. It opened up Pandora's Box and gave permission for other printmakers around the world to re-invent printmaking in terms of health and safety, and environmental responsibility.

In 1994 I modified the gelatin based "Howard Process" and discovered a way of impregnating the developed gelatin image on the printing plate with an acrylic polymer. This gave birth to the first concept of the "non-etch" etching. The "non-etch" etching allowed a plate to be coated with a sensitized gelatin emulsion which was imaged and treated with acrylic and then printed without etching the plate. After the plate was editioned, it could be reused over and over again. A major issue of cost effectiveness with lower material costs was also being addressed with the development of these safer intaglio techniques.

Shortly after developing the gelatin "non-etch" etching in 1994, I was introduced to a photopolymer film used by the electronics industry to make printed circuit boards. This became the second generation of "non-etch" etching and the research base for my next 1998 publication "Non-Toxic Intaglio Printmaking." This publication completely sold out within two years.

I have been involved in non-toxic printmaking research for about 12 years and during this time several outstanding colleagues including Elizabeth Dove, Friedhard Kiekeben, George Roberts, Phil Shaw, Susan Rostow, and Cedric Green have joined the research movement towards better non-toxic printmaking technology. It is worthy to note that all these innovators are printmakers. They contributed major pieces to what we now refer to as Non-toxic Printmaking because they were motivated largely by health and safety concerns.

Prof. Elizabeth Dove is currently Head of Printmaking at the University of Montana. She was instrumental in the development of the acrylic resist and intaglio-type methods first described in my 1998 book "Non-Toxic Intaglio Printmaking."

Friedhard Kiekeben invented a completely new mordant for etching metal plates. His contribution is probably one of the most innovative as it dealt with pure scientific research. He invented something unique in the annals of both the scientific and printmaking world. The Edinburgh Etch is a new kind of mordant that has no parallel. It enables printmakers to safely etch a variety of commonly used metal plates while yielding superb results.

Prof. George Roberts is currently head of printmaking at Boise State University who was instrumental in developing "Polyester Plate Lithography" for artistic use. He has just published a book of the same name which gives a complete description of his safe lithographic method. This is the first time in the history of Lithography that the art of lithography, as practiced by printmakers, has been completely detoxified. Not only has it been detoxified but it has also been made more user friendly and inexpensive thus making it more accessible to a greater number of printmakers and artists.

Dr. Phil Shaw is Head of the Design Department at Middlesex University in London who started investigations into screen printing inks largely through economic necessity. Dr. Shaw's material budget had been reduced to a point where it became necessary for him to make his own inks so that screen printing could continue at Middlesex University. Beginning in 1995, Dr. Shaw researched textile dye technology and developed a screen printing system, called Phytochromography, that used this technology with a gelatin ink vehicle.

Susan Rostow is an independent artist/printmaker and director of "Akua Color" in New York which makes non-toxic water-based monoprint inks. She is also currently involved in researching a type of water-based intaglio ink that can be used for dry paper intaglio printing. Her investigations into ink alternatives started in 1994 and was prompted by the pending birth of her son. She knew that a traditional toxic printmaking studio would pose a serious health threat for her family especially in the confines of her New York apartment and adjoining studio.

Cedric Green started investigations in 1994 into electrolytic etching technology which culminated in unique methods of etching metal plates in an electrolytic solution. As the technology he employs was derived from Galvanography, he called his variation "Galvetch." Mr. Green also was instrumental in the development of a safer mordent for etching zinc plates, which is a diluted copper sulphate solution, called the Bordeaux Etch.

'Non-toxic Printmaking' is developing a new terminology that encompasses terms such as Polymer Intaglio or Intaglio-Type, Acrylic Resist Etching, Phytochromgraphy, Polyester Plate Lithography, Galvetch and Fractint. The terminology has expanded to reflect this new major development in printmaking. Whatever was possible in traditional forms of printmaking now has a safer alternative. Beyond just regarding non-toxic printmaking as a safer alternative to traditional processes, it should be regarded as a new printmaking discipline as it allows printmakers far more creative diversity and flexibility than most traditional forms of printmaking.

Along with this new technical realm comes a new way of thinking about the manner in which imagery is translated or created through printmaking technology. In the past, especially with intaglio techniques, much emphasis was placed on plate reworking techniques which involved many hours of proofing and reworking the image until it reached a satisfactory conclusion. Printmakers have been severely criticized for lack of content due to the exorbitant amount of labor put into an image at the expense of "seeing" the image. Often concerns for technical wizardry became more important than the actual image. Some printmakers become more focussed on minor things such as the depth or cleanliness of an embossed plate edge rather than its imagery or content.

Technology in non-toxic intaglio was driven by health and safety considerations as well as cost effectiveness and technical virtuosity. Along with a change in technology there is also a change in the manner in which printmakers now approach the process of making prints. The image or content has become the most important consideration as the plate making process has been simplified to a point where there need not be more than 15 minutes spent on plate making. The methodology I always recommend is to rework the image rather than the plate. This is especially so for the "intaglio-type non-etch" process. With this methodology, printmakers are encouraged to focus on the imagery and content as the plate making process is but a few minutes away. This attitude has not only freed printmakers up time-wise but has led many towards a far more productive artistic output. For artists who look towards printmaking to make a living this presents a gigantic bonus. For those involved in printmaking education, this also enables printmaking classes to achieve more in shorter, limited blocks of time within fine art curriculums.

In 2001, Erin Maurelli and Phil Sanders, from the Tamarind Institute, complied a survey in an attempt to better understand contemporary issues and future directions for printmaking. This survey indicated that 89% of the schools who responded to the survey have adopted non-toxic printmaking processes. That "33% of schools surveyed have eliminated one or more courses in the past 5 years due to health concerns." This is a startling fact. Those "Mad Hatters" of printmaking who cling to the old toxic ways are in fact not only contributing to the demise of printmaking, but also to their personal well-being along with the well-being of their students. This survey also indicated that "steps are being taken to ensure a healthy working environment for students and faculty." This survey concluded with; "There is evidence to suggest an inclination to adopt non-toxic processes in all print media, and a clear trend towards adding new computers, improved ventilation and better facilities."

Over the past decade or so, printmaking in general has undergone a distinctive Renaissance. It has moved forward into the 21st century with a new momentum generated by safer methodologies and more user friendly technologies. The alchemy and total disdain for personal health and environmental consciousness has been replaced by the next generation of Non-Toxic Printmakers who want to become part of printmaking history. They want printmaking to not only survive but also to thrive. They want to clean up printmaking and make it a more vital art form which is totally unencumbered by the shackles of its inherited toxic history.

We are living in a most extraordinary time where we as individuals can "make a difference" in the printmaking world. New safer technology is only one part of the key for change. The other part deals exclusively with the dynamic images created by printmakers who have adopted non-toxic printmaking methods. The history books will make far greater note of those artists who can change the world through their imagery than those of us who develop the technologies to enable this to happen. But one cannot happen without the other. The "great technology" exists now.

My best advice to all printmakers is to make "great art" and become part of printmaking history. The time is right, the methodology is here, and the opportunity is now.