Re: pyro and cyano
(I've also said before & say
again, that I was an art student for a lot of years before I was a photo
student, and "archival" was rarely mentioned. My theory is that was
because we *knew* art was art. Photographers may, um, excuse me, be so
concerned about "archival" because.... um, they're still not sure about
I think it is moreso because we as photographers are asked the question of
either galleries or purchasers--is the mat archival, is the print printed to
archival standards, is the printer ink used archival, etc. etc. perhaps
because of past history of prints fading and spotting and browning out. I
don't think there is any question nowadays about photography taking its full
place in art, or, at least, by perusing the art magazines it seems that way.
I remember seeing a big grid of the Becher's work in Minneapolis and the
prints were developing brown spots.
I ride the fence on this issue--I do mordancage which is certainly horribly
unarchival to the print, though mine have not changed in years. But for a
couple years we had a tech in the labs who didn't get the chemistry
mathematics correct, and the fixer was diluted more than it should have
been, we came to find out. I had created this encaustic photography collage
on aluminum of my daughter and her little baby in the bathtub with bubbles
abounding (I know this sounds like kittens in baskets but it's not that
schmaltzy). It now looks like devil mom and devil baby because under the
encaustic the photo paper has developed dark brown spots. The spots are all
over their faces and eyes. I think it rivals Joel Peter Witkin.
So all that work for nothing...but I can't bear to throw it out. It is
above our toilet so every time my husband takes a leak he has to look at it.
Heheheh as Mark would say....