[alt-photo] Re: ARCHIVALITY

[Diana Bloomfield]

Hi Loris,

That's a valid point, of course (and goes hand-in-hand with labeling  
the work correctly, don't you think?). ;)

But I think the reason "photography has already been stigmatized,"  
though, is not necessarily because of the perceived lack of stability  
of the medium; rather,  I think that stigmatization stems from the  
fact that we can produce negatives, or digital scans, and so  
photography is viewed as being infinitely copied/repeatable, and so--  
less valuable.  Making very "limited edition" prints is a factor which  
helps, I'm sure, but I like to think that the one-of-a-kind alt  
process prints we do makes a bigger dent in that "infinitely  
repeatable and so less valuable" theory.

By the way, I wrote to a "product specialist" at Gamblin about their  
PVA, which is what I use for sizing-- though others may be using a  
different type of PVA.  Not sure this is really definitive w/regard to  
the archival question, but here's what she wrote:




Dear Diana –

Thank you for contacting us.

I have heard of artists using the PVA Size for dichromate printing  
with good results. PVA Size is basically archival, pH neutral glue  
that has been diluted to the perfect consistency for sizing fabric  
supports for oil painting. If the dichromate is adhering well to the  
size then I see no problem using it for this purpose.

At the current dilution it no longer functions as a glue but it may  
still have enough tac for the process. If you find that it is not  
strong enough you can purchase regular PVA glue and dilute it with  
distilled water to the consistency that better suits your needs.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.  Thank you  
for choosing our materials.

Sincerely,

Jamee

Jamee Linton-Kelly | Product Specialist | Gamblin Artists Colors Co. |  
503.235.1945 x-30 | www.gamblincolors.com




> Judy, it's not (only) about "lasting more than your physiological  
> presence
> and/or taking your part in history" but also there are the facts:
>
> 1. If you sell prints, you need a certain longevity rating and,
> 2. People (buyers) often ask about longevity (probably because  
> photography
> has been already stigmatized for not being an overly stable medium)  
> and it's
> not neat to shrug and say "I don't know" or simply lie.
>
> In short; you have to give buyers some figures (according to display/ 
> storage
> conditions) that reflect reality, I mean if you want to keep your
> credibility. Plus, as an *extra* selling point, those figures has to  
> be
> better than (or at least equal to) what is currently effective for  
> ordinary
> / mainstream digital prints.
>
> Regards,
> Loris.
>
> -----