Drucker's article "Violating Protocols" touches upon the several controversies surrounding printmaking as an art form or merely a method of distribution. She brings many questions to light that have been on the printmaker's mind since the beginning of said career. If all worth is placed in the content of the image than it wouldn't matter whether the image is printed manually or digitally, right? Personally, I would consider the method of printing to be a major factor of the final piece. The process itself is of such high regard to anyone knowledgeable of the care and precision that it requires, as opposed to the mere digital reproduction of an image, no matter how beautiful it is. Distribution from a marketing perspective alludes to the proficiency of digital consumption, as it much more profitable; yet at the same time, the work itself loses worth through such a universal method of image multiplying. But as Drucker says, the shallowness of digital prints that they acknowledge the once-upon-a-time originality of the fine art image, but its digital distribution is on the other hand just a commercializing of the artist's 'celebrity status.' Personally I see the fine art print as something far more valuable than its digital counterpart, because the technical prowess that comes with a well-executed manual print is half the worth.