Re: pyro and cyano
Judy said: (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 "art" status?) 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.... Chris
|