Re: curators v. doctors
Well, the reason why I was so concerned about the "gum not being archival"
and why I even brought it up was the dreaded mention of "Wilhelm" testing
gum. Arggghhhhhh.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:02 PM
Subject: curators v. doctors
Chris & co,
If you'd been reading the history of photography list as many years as I
have, you'd know that curators and historians generally know DIDDLE about
our processes.
They may be, often are, extremely erudite, fact packed, world-class expert
in their fields, even several fields, but take their word for ANYTHING
about "alternative processes" including what & which they are, and you're
in for a shock. (Even dealers, or in the current eupehmism "gallerists,"
know more, tho a friend once heard a famous one explaining to a customer
that you could only make one platinum print from a negative). And I stand
by the analogy with doctors -- who have actually been to med school and
done residencies & fellowships. They know so little for sure that when
they actually make a diagnosis, the NY Times magazine prints an article
about it.
I happen also (for example) to have a little book from the Getty
(somewhere in this mess) that even as a beginner I found 2 or maybe it was
3 mistakes in a once-over lightly... and they weren't really delving into
anything, just being descriptive. (Wanna bet the word "archival" wasn't on
those pages? -- tho admittedly it's some years since I read it, so I
wouldn't bet more than a half million or so.)
J.
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, 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.
Chris
----- Original Message ----- From: "Diana Bloomfield"
<dhbloomfield@bellsouth.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: archivalness of gum
Thanks, Chris. Yes, Marek mentioned that about the gum layer over the
pt/pd possibly working as sort of a preservation tool-- which is good
to know. Again, I'm really curious -- since the curator disagreed with
you about carbon and gum being the "most archival," did she say what
she thought was-- in her estimation?
On Dec 20, 2007, at 11:38 PM, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
Diana,
I am not sure how much time it took to transfer, but it seemed like it
was
decades. Also, it was a faint ghost of an image, and I would wager a
bet
that even with the transfer of some of the metal to paper in contact,
a
platinum print is still way up there in archivalness, in the same
category
as carbon and gum.
If one thinks about it, look at BW paper--I've seen Becher Typology
Water
Towers hanging on the walls of the Walker in Mpls that already were
showing
brown spots and silvering out and such. And then think of albumen
prints
that turn yellow with time. One reason gum printing was so exciting
in the
beginning was that it was an answer to the fading of silver nitrate
based
prints at that time--people wanted something that had more permanence
than
what they were finding in a few short years was fading. Luckily I
xeroxed
those discussions from the early 1860's when gum and carbon came on
the
horizon. There is no silver to fade or fox or spot, just pigment and
gum
and paper and very little dichromate left. Well, and now some sodium
hypochlorite in Marek's prints :)
So by comparison, so I thought, gum, carbon and platinum were the
best. OH,
and guess what--if the gum layer is on top of the pt/pd print, it
would
prevent the ghosting from occurring by acting as a barrier to the
paper in
contact with the print, so in fact it should HELP with any
shortcomings
pt/pd may have!
Chris
Christina Z. Anderson
Assistant Professor
Photo Option Coordinator
Montana State University
Box 173350
Bozeman, MT 59717
406.994.6219
CZAphotography.com
|