[alt-photo] Re: an alternative to alternative

KISS BOB bobkiss at caribsurf.com
Sun Apr 1 19:36:46 GMT 2012

      I think we agree on everything.  I was pointing out 
two different things:
1) I was refuting the suggestion (not yours, that of the 
aforementioned gallery owner) that people who buy photo 
prints don't care about the print medium.
2) I was pointing out that the gallery owner who shows 
some of my prints agrees with us...EDUCATION is 90% of 
selling prints, once a viewer has expressed interest.
      I agree with you completely and would never suggest 
that we should not invite the PAL to see our work and, 
with education, turn as many as possible into savvy 
collectors.  But we must NOT allow the PAL to influence 
the medium in which we express our vision.  We must do 
creatively what we must do and hope that our audience will 
continue to buy while evangelising our beloved media to 
the PAL.
*****Please note that I am recovering from total left hip 
replacement two weeks ago and still taking strong 
painkillers.  If I make less sense than usual, please 
forgive me.  Who knows, perhaps I make MORE sense while 
taking these things!  ;-))

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 14:06:12 -0400
  Diana Bloomfield <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> I don't think I'd disagree with anything you say here, 
>and I definitely agree with your last sentence, in 
> I will add, though, that while savvy collectors are 
>absolutely what we'd all like to cultivate,  I certainly 
>don't spurn the Public at Large (PAL).  At some earlier 
>point in their lives, those savvy collectors were the 
>PAL.  So, to educate the PAL, many of whom are genuinely 
>interested in art and in photography, specifically, 
>would/should be a purposeful goal.  Doing so might just 
>transform them into savvy collectors of 'historic/alt' 
> I personally have always loved traditional printmaking, 
>and through the years, I've amassed a nice little 
>collection of mezzotints.  When I first became enamored 
>with them, though, I just simply liked the look of them. 
> Most I saw were relatively small, and I just thought 
>they were like perfect little jewels.  The more I saw, 
>the more I was intrigued, and-- ultimately-- I became 
>more interested in and educated about the specific 
>labor-intensive process itself.  But what drew me to them 
>in the first place was simply the look of them.  At the 
>time, I could have cared less about all the gritty 
>details about how they were made.  I think a lot of 
>collectors start out that way.
> So I would hope for a dealer or gallerist to welcome ALL 
>potential clients who walk through their door (not just 
>already established collectors), and with the help of the 
>artist, educate them in the process.  Otherwise, I think 
>a great opportunity will be sorely missed.
> Diana
> On Apr 1, 2012, at 11:28 AM, KISS BOB wrote:
>>     I tend to agree with you on this.  The dealer who 
>>shows some of my prints in NYC was also my Prof of 
>>History and Aesthetics of Photo at RIT all those decades 
>>ago.  He did his Masters at Visual Studies Workshop with 
>>Beaumont Newhall and Nathan Lyons as his thesis advisers. 
>> He also held an important chair in the Grad Photo Dept 
>>at Pratt for over a decade.  He has had a successful 
>>photo gallery in NYC for over 30 years.  I mention all of 
>>this just to suggest that he might know of what he 
>> 1) He ALWAYS told me to distinguish between "the public 
>>at large" (PAL) and "your audience" (YA).  The PAL won't 
>>know or care about the processes but YA will!  Mass 
>>market vs. YOUR market.
>> 2) He said no one ever comes in and says, "Take me to 
>>your gum prints".  They ask for certain subject matter or 
>>the work of one photographer and he shows them that plus 
>>other related work.
>> 3) He said every one buys because they love the image 
>>but they pay a given price because of so many OTHER 
>>aspects such as PRINT MEDIUM (pt vs silver, etc), print 
>>number in the edition, the quality of the printing, the 
>>condition of the print, the fame/notoriety of the 
>>photographer, and so many other things.  So, to the 
>>collector, print medium IS an important aspect of why 
>>they buy and what they are willing to pay.  To a truly 
>>savvy collector it may be an extremely important aspect.
>> 4) He said that selling photographic prints is 10% hype 
>>and 90% education.  E.g., he might see someone admiring 
>>an Evans' Sea of Steps.  He would say, "Amazing movement 
>> in that image!  And quite significant in early 20th C 
>>photography.  And this is one of the best examples of a 
>>platinum print from that era."  He then sits back and 
>>answers all of the questions stimulated by his three 
>>short sentences contributing a few more details if the 
>>client shows more interest.  Mostly education with a VERY 
>>little hype.
>>     Now, if one's intention is to sell to the PAL make 
>>LARGE, highly saturated, inkjet prints mounted on 
>>aluminum and stand them up in any gallery.  There is 
>>nothing at all wrong with this if it is what you want to 
>>do but, if that is what list members wanted to do, then 
>>why are we donning our latex/vinyl gloves and 
>>respirators, handling toxic and ridiculously expensive 
>>chemicals, and trying to minimize our exposure to plate 
>>burner UV a few times a day?  We must be highly motivated 
>>to make something special.   Now this may be our own 
>>problem but there IS an AUDIENCE out there for each of 
>>us, perhaps not the public at large.
>>     Having been an advertising and fashion photog in NYC 
>>and Europe from 1974 to 1993 (when I moved here to 
>>Barbados) I have had more than enough of applying my 
>>creativity to reaching the public at large.  I shoot what 
>>moves me and print it in whatever medium I feel best 
>>carries the feeling that made me want to make the image 
>>in the first place.  The most interesting discovery I 
>>ever made since 1993 is, the more deeply personal my 
>>motivation for making an image and print, the more it 
>>seems to resonate in the soul of my audience and the more 
>>prints I sell.
>>            CHEERS
>>                BOB
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:35:13 -0700
>> Mark Nelson <ender100 at aol.com> wrote:
>>> I really don't think he knows what he is talking about. 
>>>Mark Nelson
>>> www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com
>>> PDNPRint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
>>> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
>>> sent from my iPhonetypeDeviceThingy
>>> On Mar 31, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Diana Bloomfield 
>>><dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> I've had so many conversations with my gallery owner 
>>>>here about this, and while he shows a ton of printmaking 
>>>>(mezzotints, monotypes, etc), and certainly makes 
>>>>distinctions there-- he is insistent that with 
>>>>photography, it doesn't really matter how an image is 
>>>>printed (nor what camera was used-- which we don't 
>>>>typically point out)-- what matters is how strong the 
>>>>final image is, and how it resonates with the viewer.  He 
>>>>admits that the WAY in which an image is printed is 
>>>>certainly part of the final look, of course, but he 
>>>>maintains no one really cares-- ultimately-- about the 
>>>>specific printing method.  Yes-- he's a real gem-- but, 
>>>>sadly, I think he's speaking the truth.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Alt-photo-process-list | 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | 
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | 

More information about the Alt-photo-process-list mailing list