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

[Diana Bloomfield]

I think I'm getting a headache here, Keith.  I suspect we're talking  
about two different things.  Though I've never seen an "image" taken  
with a lenscap on (unless it had a pinhole in it!), I have actually  
seen one or two gum prints made in heavy fog-- and I will have to say  
that the image itself, on each, was interesting.  The process enhanced  
that, but if the image itself hadn't been compelling to begin with (no  
matter how faint it was), no process would have made it so (my opinion).

My issue, really, is that I see a lot of really bad work (again,  
that's my subjective opinion) that someone thinks will be elevated if  
(1) he/she prints it so big that people will be drawn to it, no matter  
what.  How can they not be, taking up multiple feet of wall space? or  
(2) if printed in some "alt" process, no matter how badly-- or, you  
know, he/she uses a Photoshop application that might duplicate that  
process (seriously, I've seen that too many times), and that will  
somehow elevate their banal image into something special.

I think you're delving into something much more nuanced than what my  
point was-- but I get what you're saying.  (I think. )

Diana


On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Keith Gerling wrote:

> 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
>>>>