Re: Reprise ...Re: archivalness of gum
Actually, Diana, I thought your asking your interlocutor if s/he thought his/her watercolors were archival was the PERFECT question. (Their lack of archivality is variable, largely depending, if memory serves, on how applied to which paper & with how much "medium".) I think in other words that the subtext of all, ALL, of this dithering about whichever
*photographic* medium is... ta dah !!! ARCHIVAL!! is that it's, feh!,
only a photograph so what good can it be?
I add that I myself am product of 2 highly esteemed art schools (Cooper & Chicago Art Inst.) tho of course practically before the dawn of time (and only one, extremely perfunctory, class in photography in the bunch). The word *archival* was not EVER mentioned. We did learn you ought to isolate a canvas with something like glue, and it was better to do undercoats "fat over lean." (Mostly tho we tended to shrug this information off. We were ARTISTS, not chemists.)
True, some things were hinted -- that for instance certain pigments as grounds were better, but by and large there was no agonizing over archivality.... We were, as noted, ARTISTS, so our work was deathless, and if perchance it changed -- faded perhaps -- even better, ... that would be the patina of age !!!!!
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Diana Bloomfield wrote:
Thanks, Judy. I actually didn't know that about watercolor, so that was a bad answer I gave him-- and maybe he knew that, and so probably the reason he asked. But thanks to a few people here, I can now tell him all about the archival properties of gum. So . . . maybe gum over platinum is actually THE most archival! :)