[alt-photo] Re: ?: Re: Official press release about HPlarge formatnegatives

[Keith Gerling]

Diana,

I had in mind works that have little or no image whatsoever, take for
instance gum bichromates work taken in heavy fog or perhaps an "image" taken
with the lenscap on!  So, yes, it is the process I find interesting and it
did much (everything) for the "image".

Keith

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Diana Bloomfield <
dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Hi Keith,
>
> If I'm reading you correctly, you actually just supported what I was saying
> in my last sentence here.  The actual process in those works of art is what
> you found interesting, or captivating-- (You're obviously in that small
> percentage of people who are interested in the process of art.)-- But, by
> your own admission, the processes didn't do much for the image, or for the
> final piece of art, which "might be lacking."
>
> Whether the work "has substance" or not is a totally different topic, I
> think (?).
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Keith Gerling wrote:
>
>  Heresy perhaps, but I would beg to differ with that last statement.  There
>> are examples of paintings, photographs and sculpture and film that *I*
>> find
>> especially captivating although the image may be minimal, abstract or
>> particularly droll.  Perhaps it is texture, or the use of color, or the
>> manner in which washes or impasto is used to build up the work,  but the
>> work still has substance even though the fundamental image might be
>> lacking.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Diana Bloomfield <
>> dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Bob,
>>>
>>> I agree with most of what you've said here, but when I say the final
>>> image
>>> is really what really matters-- I mean that this is what matters to the
>>> general public/ people who may look at those images.  I do think the
>>> process
>>> matters, but it truly only matters (mostly) to me (ie, to the person
>>> making
>>> the art).  Of course-- for any of us-- there might be some
>>> curators/gallery
>>> owners/collectors who will know what they're looking at and be very
>>> interested in the process involved-- especially true for gallery owners
>>> who
>>> will want to pass that on to their collectors/viewers-- but for the vast
>>> majority of people who look at photography, it really is the final image
>>> that matters to them.  They rarely want to hear about the fine details.
>>>
>>> And I don't care how the image is printed, even if your print just rolled
>>> off a big old Epson printer-- if the image itself isn't captivating, no
>>> amount of good (or bad) printing--  no matter what process used-- will
>>> make
>>> it so.
>>>
>>> Diana
>>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2010, at 5:28 PM, BOB KISS wrote:
>>>
>>>       I have been following this thread for a while and much information
>>>
>>>> and many interesting opinions have been shared.  I really do not want to
>>>> get
>>>> into the question of the steps in getting to the final print.
>>>>      However I think a few distinctions should be offered.
>>>> 1) I agree that no one will be interested in any print if the image is
>>>> not
>>>> captivating in some way, even if in its subtlety.
>>>> 2) It is very interesting that many of you who belong to this list and
>>>> have
>>>> worked very hard mastering alternative methods of *printing* suggest
>>>> that
>>>> image is all that counts.  If this were so you would post all of your
>>>> images
>>>> to Facebook and be done with it.
>>>> 3) One must remember that the OBJECT OF ART is also important and THIS
>>>> is
>>>> the strength of alternative processes that should be presented to
>>>> gallery
>>>> owners when trying to show alt prints.  Again, boring image?  No one
>>>> wants
>>>> it.  But a great image presented with a creatively appropriate alt
>>>> printing
>>>> process creates an object of art that is stunning and saleable.  Don't
>>>> forget, gallery owners are business people and they need to sell to keep
>>>> the
>>>> doors open and track lights on.
>>>> 4) Why do we do alt printing if not for the wonderful textures, colors,
>>>> tonalities etc presented by each process?
>>>> 5) These are not just my opinions.  I learned them from a photo
>>>> historian,
>>>> former holder of a chair in the graduate dept of Pratt, and NYC gallery
>>>> owner.  He said, firstly, the image has to be great.  Then you look at
>>>> the
>>>> object of art itself and this greatly affects the desirability and price
>>>> of
>>>> the print.  He has sold and continues to sell many vintage and modern
>>>> alt
>>>> process prints, except that the vintage ones were not alt in their
>>>> day...they were "high tech" for the 19th century!  ;-))
>>>>
>>>>                      CHEERS!
>>>>                              BOB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>