-----------------------<included message follows>-------------------------
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 13:48:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Van Dyke brown prints at the MOMA
On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 SCHRAMMR@WLSVAX.WVNET.EDU wrote:
> Ever since Talbot invented the negative, photography has been considered
> a print making process. The question of whether photography was an
> artistic medium was settled a long time ago. Unfortunatly, all too often
> photography seems to be put in a special category. In my opinion, we
> fine art photographers should stop calling ourselves photographers. We
> are artists who happen to be using photography as a medium of expression.
Thanks, Bob, you saved me the trouble of a separate reply to Luis, on the
order of "come off it." But here's a question: If I prepared a cliche
verre negative with paint and pencil and printed it in vandyke brown, is
it OK if MoMA shows it in the print department?
It is? Well what if my cliche verre is a "photogram," made by placing
objects on a light-sensitive surface?
Or, what if my vandyke brown is itself a photogram, made by placing
objects on a surface sensitized with vandyke brown emulsion?
Or what if it's made by combining objects or hand-made transparencies with
a traditional, photo-department negative, say one from the official
photography collection of the Museum of Modern Art?
I mention also, for what it's worth, that vandyke brown and gum printing were
taught for years in the printmaking department at my school, where
photo-lithography, photo etching and photo silkscreen are still taught.
However, I disagree with Bob in that I consider myself a photographer....
and if I put photo emulsion on canvas, I will still be a photographer.
Cheers,
Judy