U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: I agree with Sandy

Re: I agree with Sandy

You want to hear something even scarier? Now you can go online and order a National Geographic print, 8x10, ARCHIVAL, mind you, from 25,000 (!) choices, and have it for $19.95. Isn't that incredible. Pretty soon we'll all be hanging Ms Green Eyes on our walls for under $20. Presumably not Ms. Green Eyes as a grown woman, though...

Maybe all of you already knew that. But my point is that if Fuji Crystal Archive prints can be had so cheaply, all the more reason to attach mystique to hands on processes.

Mea culpa if I got this all wrong, I have not checked the website out yet (PrintsNGS.com) so maybe this is a comeon price and only ONE photo is available for that much. But this ad is in the current June 2007 mag.

LOL poor National Geographic, when I was born my mom bought me a lifetime subscription to it for $250....
----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:13 PM
Subject: I agree with Sandy

Sndy King wrote:

It has always seemed to me that the mystique of Fresson is almost entirely due to the fact that the prints are made by members of the Fresson family using a proprietary printing method that around a century old. Even if one were able to manufacture a direct carbon type paper that is superior to Fresson it still would not be a Fresson.

On that score, gum bichromate prints are in the same family as direct carbon. The color gum prints made by a number of contemporary workers are technically much superior to color prints made by Fresson, IMHO. But there are still many people who would prefer to own a real Fresson.

Sandy King
Exactly, exactly, exactly.

The most beautiful photograph in the most exquisite medium might not get a second glance. In our celebrity crazed culture, how could it be otherwise. Maker of this beautiful picture is not a celebrity. Maybe some day, but Fresson is already celebrity.

My hunch anyway is that with today's software & hardware, a "technically" better print could be made by graduate student with Photoshop, Apple Giraffe, & inkjet.

However, forget that. "Art" across the board today is a commodity, and don't kid yourself that old process is somehow "different." I think of today's (Sunday's) NY Times Business section article, under topic Sunday Money: "Art Advice, for hire. By Julie Bick, page 5."

Maybe someone has that already on line, and would take the part that starts "Consultants can charge by the hour, " and continues through "For those who want to measure art sale returns as part of their financial portfolios, ArtASAnAsset.com offers the Mei Moses Fine Art indexes...." and well, actually through the end of the article.

In sum: they take the artist you liked, divide his/her last auction price by previous year's sales, subtract from gallery's monthly rental, add to last year's price and length of waiting list, multiply by consultant's hourly rate, add 50 points for famous lover, and advise whether to buy or not.