Yes, these were the shows. The titles sound about right, esp. "Photo
into Sculpture." Interestingly, "Photography as Printmaking" has been
revived (or at least a subset of it) and was shown last year at a
museum in the town just north of me (Lincoln, MA). What a thrill to
see these images again. Many showed their age, both in terms of their
"non-archivalness" or ephemeral nature and also in terms of how far
the culture has come since the late 60's. Others were still fresh, both
conceptually and as prints.
For example, there was a large collage by Heinekin, "Are You REA?" with
its graphic Vietnam War imagery and its reference to the long defunct
Railway Express package delivery system. (Not sure if "Are You UPS?"
would have the same impact.) OTOH, there were Fichter's cyanotypes made
from collages of Diana negatives which have held up beautifully.
>
> Pratt had an elective in "non-silver" by 1976 or earlier; within a few
> years it was required for photo majors. My impression was that the
> "revival" actually died down during in this country during the '80s. My
> photo major students during this period, who *had* to take the course to
> graduate, often resented it -- the boys *especially.* They just wanted to
> be in their darkrooms making c-prints.
That somewhat squares with my experience. In the early 80's, everything
was oriented toward "how can this help me make money," at least where
I was teaching. The students who were concerned with strictly aesthetic
issues were a small handful while those studying photography with a
commercial intent (advertising or photojournalism) were a vast majority.
The only argument I might have with Judy is that this attitude was equally
distributed between the sexes. I didn't notice one direction being more
male than female or vice versa.
Carson
carson@ileaf.com