Re: archivalness of gum
Thanks, Chris. Well, you need to go back and ask what he thinks is the most archival, and let us know. :) I'm always curious as to what museum curators (and gallery people) have to say when it comes to alt processes. In my--admittedly, limited--experience, most of the ones I've spoken with don't seem to be all that knowledgeable about, or even very familiar with, alt processes in general. Clearly, I'm meeting all the wrong people, but still-- I'm consistently surprised by who knows what about alt processes (and photography, for that matter), and who doesn't-- including at least one curator I know who is in charge of a large and fairly impressive museum photography collection, but who seems to be totally clueless about alt processes. I guess that part of art history/photographic art just isn't included in curator school. ??
On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:18 AM, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
No...it was a discussion about something else, and he brought up the point about "gum not being the most archival process" and I was shocked because I had always told my students it was the most archival process there was, and was worried I would have to recant. Thus this point is very important to me. I have always also said pt/pd was up there, but thought gum/carbon were still higher. However, in my convo with him, I was "all about gum" and didn't even think to ask about pt/pd.