[alt-photo] Re: "Alternative Printing": Terms to define

[Loris Medici]

You're making good points Etienne. I think I'm a little bit conformist
in that aspect...

Photography is what the name suggests, therefore all that we have
already discussed fits into that definition. OTOH, as a buyer you'll
be interested in a. the image (the thought / emotion / message
ect....) and b. the object and maybe c. the whole process.

Dry point or mezzo tint or chemical etching however you mark the plate
in fact all conclude as intaglio prints. Just like our gum
dichromates, cyanotypes, x-ray arworks, pinholes and such are
photographs. So the general category is photograhy but alt-process is
a term defining the b. part of the above interest points.

Perhaps that's the reason of the difference between our perceptions,
therefore categorization...

Regards,
Loris.


2010/2/15 etienne garbaux <photographeur at nerdshack.com>:
> It appears to me that this view is rooted in art history, where the
> description of an artwork applies to the artifact itself -- oil on canvas,
> acrylic on masonite, found objects on nylon mesh, etc. -- because, for the
> traditional visual arts, that's pretty much all there is.  Photography adds
> the imaging process, which has no analog in most traditional visual art [but
> see next sentence], raising the question of whether something about it
> should be included in the description.  There is analogous precedent for
> this, even in the traditional visual arts -- for example, dry point etchings
> are generally distinguished from chemical etchings, notwithstanding that the
> actual printmaking process (inking and pressing the etched plate) are the
> same.  So, I see no a priori reason that the imaging process shouldn't be
> considered in the description of the photographic process that led to a
> photographic artifact.
>
> Consider the name of this very list -- it is the alternative *photographic*
> process mailing list, NOT the alternative *printmaking* process list.  To my
> mind, alternative imaging processes ARE alternative *photographic*
> processes, even if they aren't alternative *printmaking* processes.
>  Therefore, the question to my mind is, what imaging and printmaking
> techniques qualify as "alt"?  I doubt I will ever consider SG to be alt in
> my lifetime, but in 80 years, who knows?  (I do on occasion coat my own SG
> plates and paper, but even then I consider it quasi-alt rather than
> legitimate alt.)
>
> Happily, there is no need for us to agree on this, as long as people don't
> post snippy, "that's off-topic -- go away" responses when someone brings up
> the sorts of topics Loris listed above -- which I have not seen happen.
> ...