RE: alt exhibit
Would you agree to say that alternative processes broadly are contemporary adaptions of the historical processes? Roger Roger Kockaerts PERMADOCUMENT - Atelier pH7 rue des Balkans 7 B-1180 Brussels T/ 32 2 347 66 76 www.permadocument.be -----Message d'origine----- De : john@johnbrewerphotography.com [mailto:john@johnbrewerphotography.com] Envoyé : vendredi 7 septembre 2007 3:49 À : alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca Objet : Re: alt exhibit > Nice to have some dialogue going; are we the only ones here? I'm here Katharine ;) My personal definition of alternative processes is the production of a photographic image using non factory made media for the end result. At the risk of being anal I also define historical and alternative as being subtly different, for example the Ware cyanotype or the temperaprint are alt but not historical. Just my tuppence worth. John www.johnbrewerphotography.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 8:35 PM Subject: Re: alt exhibit >I don't disagree; it's kind of like glass half full or glass half empty. >I suppose, if truth be told, I look at it from where I stand with both >feet planted well inside alternative processes, and see everything else as >"outside." :--) > > I didn't mean positive and negative definitions in terms of value > judgment, assigning good and bad connotations to the definitions; I only > meant positive and negative in the sense of positive space vs. negative > space. ...the difference between identifying "alternative processes" as > a thing in and of itself, vs identifying "alternative processes" as > everything that's not mainstream, as the negative space around > mainstream photography. All I was saying is that I identify alternative > processes the first way rather than the second way, but that's not to say > my way of looking at it is the only way or even a majority way of > looking at it; I suspect the other way, of seeing it as whatever's > non-mainstream, is more widespread. > > I do agree that inkjet prints don't really belong under "alternative > processes." I only meant that once I understood the definition of > "alternative" for the purpose of the show, it made more sense to me that > there would be inkjet prints in the show, because the call for work > identified images made with a holga camera or a pinhole camera as > examples of "alternative processes" with no requirement that these images > be printed in some non-mainstream or traditionally alternative process. > > Nice to have some dialogue going; are we the only ones here? > > Katharine > > > On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Diana Bloomfield wrote: > >> Agree that the confusion, in part, is with the title they chose to use >> for the exhibit. "Alternative Works" would have been more accurate. >> >> That said, the term "alternative," as in "alternative processes," does >> imply, in part, that which is not firmly entrenched in the mainstream-- >> to my way of thinking. (Again, digital printing is-- at least from what >> I've seen.) I don't view that as a negative definition, nor as having a >> negative connotation. "Anything outside the mainstream," given where >> the mainstream has been lately, seems positive to me. ;) >> >> Diana >> >> >> On Sep 6, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Katharine Thayer wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On Sep 6, 2007, at 7:57 AM, permadocument wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On visiting the on-line alt exhibit I was impressed by the overall >>>> quality >>>> of the retained works. A question arises: would it not be the moment >>>> to >>>> define what we really mean when we speak of "alternative works". >>>> >>> >>> >>> I think "alternative works" could be defined any way a person or >>> institution would care to define it, because "alternative works" >>> doesn't mean anything to me particularly. Now that I understand that >>> the call for work for this particular show defined "alternative" as >>> such things as images from plastic cameras, pinhole images, photograms >>> and the like, I'm not surprised to find such images, printed >>> digitally, as part of the show. >>> >>> For me, the confusion arose from their use of the phrase "alternative >>> processes" as the title of the show. "Alternative processes" has come >>> to mean, for me at least, and I suspect for some others as well, a >>> specific set of handcoated processes. If they had named the show >>> "alternative works" rather than "alternative processes," I wouldn't >>> have had any expectation that the show would consist mostly if not >>> wholly of works made by one or more of these handcoated "alternative >>> processes," because as I said, "alternative works" could be anything at >>> all as far as I'm concerned. Anthotypes, holga pictures, >>> crossprocessed images, whatever, including the set of processes I >>> know as "alternative processes." >>> >>> And maybe "alternative processes" isn't a good name, because it does >>> seem to denote "alternative to" x, and then you have to define what x >>> is and accept everything outside x as "alternative." But I've never >>> defined "alternative processes" as being whatever's left outside the >>> boundaries of some x, to me it does have a positive definition as this >>> particular group of processes, rather than a negative definition as >>> "anything outside the mainstream." So maybe something else, like >>> "handcoated processes" or "historical processes" would be a better name >>> than "alternative processes." >>> >>> I'm not yet ready to accept gelatin silver as an alternative process >>> unless it's handcoated, and then I do think it belongs. But it's not >>> surprising that we don't all agree precisely on where the boundaries >>> lie that demark "alternative processes." >>> katharine >>> >> >> > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: > 269.13.6/991 - Release Date: 05/09/2007 14:55 > >
|