>Thanks, Bob, you saved me the trouble of a separate reply to Luis, on the
>order of "come off it."
That's ok, I had my hector in place;-)
>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?
Sure. Even in the automobile dept. if, for instance, part of the image is
an automobile. It is always ok to have exceptions **IF** there is an
explanation provided with it. Can the original poster, Shauna, confirm that
there wasn't?
I come from a different background, which includes writing encyclopedias
and consulting for, among others, the Getty Art History Information Program
(i.e., _Art and Architecture Thesaurus_) I deal with these issues
professionally almost on a daily basis. The Vandykes were from negatives,
not from objets trouve's to produce photograms.
>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?
The resulting print does not come off a press but it usually falls under
the classification of "mixed media".
Luis Nadeau
awef6t@mis.ca
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
http://www.mi.net/dialin/awef6t/