This question moves me to quote John Dewey, one of the few esthetic
philosophers whose comments seem relevant to the actual "art experience."
In looking at art, he says, we mentally recreate or follow the action of
the artist in creating it. If the viewer knows the difference between
platinum and gelatine s/he will therefore respond accordingly. If
s/he doesn't, the response will be limited to superficialities and
content. Indeed, if process ("the poetry of material") were not crucial
to our sensibilities, we would all do laser prints.
Not to denigrate laser prints across the board -- I recently bought a
living wonder -- but it, too, is another order of creature. In fact, part
of the fey charm (or "hit") of the one I bought was *exactly* because it
was a laser print, and I mentally recreated handing the slide to the clerk
& having this image pop out.
And in this context I will repeat what I have said before (forgive, but
it bears repeating): All too often the "authorities," those creating
hierarchies in photography, in fact those who determine which works will
live, are appallingly ignorant, I would say, oblivious of process. A
workshop with Beaumont Newhall in the early '80s was a great delight, but
hearing him airily dismiss questions about process was not. Naomi
Rosenblum's "History of Photography" has about 15 technical errors in 3
pages on "alternative processes." I have read major photo historians
and critics making giant bloopers about basics of process and materials.
And you bet it matters. Does it matter whether you're looking at a
watercolor, an oil painting or an etching? If you don't know the
difference, your response will be little above the boy on a pony or story
level. In which case a photograph of the most beautiful object in the world
would be the most beautiful photograph in the world. N'est-ce pas?
Judy