[alt-photo] Re: "Alternative" printing?

[Diana Bloomfield]

Hi Dan,

Well, not to beat a dead horse here (though I may be too late), I have  
actually noticed this a lot lately-- and on closer inspection, the  
work described as such is nearly always solely digital.

But what caught my eye this time was someone who lives in my general  
area (which is why I won't provide the link here, but I'll send it to  
you off-list), who is presiding over some public art event, and touted  
not only as someone who is adept at digital, but also as someone who  
is knowledgeable in "alternative chemical processes."  The added word  
of "chemical" made it unambiguous to my mind.

Where I live, those of us who do hand-applied alt processes seem to be  
few and far between, so most of us know each other-- or are certainly  
aware of each other's work, even if we haven't actually met.  So since  
I'd never heard of this person-- I was intrigued.  I had no idea there  
was someone so close by, also doing alt processes.  Naturally, I go  
into the website.  I first looked at the work, which I really liked  
and found pretty interesting.  However, none of the images is labeled  
as to process.  So I then go into the bio, and this person is  
described as a "digital artist and printmaker."  But the bio goes on  
to say that for the last decade, the imagery is done "entirely using  
digital processing  . . . while further extending an interest in  
alternative processes."   Later, Adobe Photoshop and Corel are  
mentioned as the "tools" this person uses to create the images.

The impression I got from reading all this, is that this person likes  
alternative processes and might certainly have a "knowledge" of them  
(which I do think differs from actually carrying out the work itself),  
and maybe even did some at one point-- and that interest has carried  
over into influencing the current work (all printed digitally).  If  
there is, indeed, any hand-applied process added to these digital  
prints, I think it would have been mentioned.  I'm not even sure it  
could be classified as "mixed media," because I really think it's  all  
digital.

I do think this is manipulative use of language, and and attempt to,  
perhaps, alter how we understand and view photographic prints-- and  
also have us view digital "printmaking" as something other than what  
it is.  In this particular instance, one has to read closely to see  
what this person is actually saying about the work.

Though I do digital printing myself and see no issue with doing so, I  
damn well know the difference between a print that rolls off that  
printer and one that is painstakingly hand-applied and created, from  
start to finish.  I personally find alt process printing to be  
extremely rewarding, on many levels.  I like doing it;  I like the  
creativity involved, the infinite possibilities for interpretation,  
the feel of the brush and the paper and mixing the chemicals, and I  
like the challenge.  I would never call my final alt-process prints  
digital prints, or even digitally-inspired, simply because they're  
not. So why imply that a digital print is somehow an alternative  
process print?

  Again, to educate the general public and even some gallery owners  
and/or curators about this sort of printing sometimes seems like an  
ongoing, never-ending job in itself.  So when self-described digital  
"printmakers" come along and use subtle (or, not so subtle) language  
to somehow elevate what is a digital print (no matter how well it's  
done), I find just mind-boggling-- and it serves to further confuse  
those who are already confused about these ancient printing processes.

Whew. That's how I see it, anyway.  I'll send you the link off-list.

Diana





On Feb 14, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Dan Burkholder wrote:

> That is a curious way for a digital printer to describe the work  
> they produce. Can you point us to some URL examples? Thanks. (And I  
> haven't read all the thread so if you've already addressed this just  
> set me straight.)
>
> Dan
>
> info at DanBurkholder.com
> www.DanBurkholder.com
>
> On Feb 13, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Maybe this has been discussed before, but I wonder if anyone else  
>> has noticed this recent trend (at least it seems recent to me).  
>> I've noticed-- especially lately-- that I seem to either hear about  
>> or see photographers' work (and websites), where the photographers  
>> refer to  themselves as "alternative process" printers.  I always  
>> take a second look, because I'm interested in what they're doing.   
>> Then when I take a closer look, I see that nine times out of ten,  
>> all their printing is actually digital.  No hand-applied processes,  
>> no chemicals, no laborious painstaking work involved (except, of  
>> course, learning Photoshop)-- nothing except a seemingly thorough  
>> knowledge of which Photoshop buttons to push to simulate what might  
>> pass for the look of an "alternative process" print.
>>
>> So have I just been out of it, or is this a new thing--  
>> photographers who use Photoshop extensively, calling themselves  
>> "alternative process" printers?  I'm really curious about this and,  
>> I admit, also find it somewhat annoying.  (Okay. I find it really  
>> annoying, on many levels.)  It also seems a bit like false  
>> advertising to me, but I'm not buying their work, so I guess I  
>> shouldn't really care.  At this point, though, I can't see anything  
>> about digital as being "alternative."     So . . .  is it just me?   
>> When did this start?
>>
>> Diana
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo