Luis writes:
>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?
The exceptions were NOT explained unless I missed them. MOMA has
plaques at different points in the exhibition explaining what a print
is, and the publication that accompanies the exhibit divides prints
into several categories: _intaglio_ (etchings, engravings, drypoints,
aquatints, and mezzotints), _relief_ (woodcuts and linoleum cuts)
_planographic_ (lithographs), _screenprint_ and finally _ephemera_
(works created by commercial printing processes--t-shirts, posters,
compact discs).
I was initially excited to see the Van Dyke brown prints (not posters)
but then I was a little confused and disappointed because of how the
museum defined a "print," with no mention of the Van Dyke process or
how these prints fit in with the other work (although I could have
missed something; it's a pretty big place!).
I think we would all agree that photography is art; it deserves to be
exhibited--and *IS* exhibited--in the finest museums in the world. I
was just intrigued by the curators' decision to include work that is
actually excluded by the show's own definition.
I enjoyed seeing the Van Dyke brown work displayed in the "Thinking
Print" exhibit. I feel that it was a disservice, however, to not
include an explanation of its unique process as they did with the
other printing techniques.
Shauna
frischsl@jccw22.cc.sunyjcc.edu