[alt-photo] brushmarks (was Re: How do you reproduce your work?)

[Judy Seigel]

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, Diana Bloomfield wrote:

> .... I tend to not show the brush marks-- although it does depend on 
> the image itself and the process used.  I suppose if this hypothetical 
> publication is a book explaining alt processes, then it's good to show those 
> marks.  If it's simply work being published-- not specific to alt process, or 
> an alt process how-to publication, I would hesitate showing the brush marks. 
> Again, it depends-- but I often think showing those brush marks (in a 
> publication or in an exhibit) can get a little precious and suggests that 
> you, as an artist, are more interested in the process used than the image 
> itself.  At least, that's how I think when I see something like that. I do 
> think that brush marks often tend to detract from an image, rather than 
> enhance it.

Thanks to Diana for putting that so well...  Or to put it another way (or 
two other ways), #1, watch out that the brush marks aren't the most 
interesting part of the print, and #2, that they don't become a familiar 
device or cliche -- not so much an authentic and interesting presentation
as the same "clever" contrivance from person to person that ultimately 
detracts from the "art."

    Tho I hasten to add that I'm as big a sucker for "process" as the 
next person (and I reserve the right to foreground it whenever), but it 
needs to be, pardon the expression, "expressive."  After a while "brush 
marks" may not express much that hasn't already been well covered... (tho
the "artist" who doesn't see that may be doomed anyway).

Judy