> Digital is digital... what does that mean? What if you use your
> computer to do color separations to do gum, is that kosher or are you not
> alternative any more since you are using your computer?
>
> And why does it matter that dye transfer was factory photography?
> Photogravure was used to print books, and so was albumen prints, and
> woodbury type, and even cyanotype, as you well know, Judy. So why don't
> knock them off too. Anything commercial has got to go.
>
> And why shove toning of into a corner? Why is it different if you tone
> a salted-paper (oh, there's another commercial publishing process of
> old; nope, salted paper isn't an alternative) to alter the tone
> and to improve permanence than if you tone a silver print to alter the
> tone and improve permanence?
Hello??? Richard???? Whatttttt?????
Who is "knocking" *anything* off? Or "shoving" anything into a corner?
What made you think I of all people would do or had done such a mindless
thing? And "kosher"? "KOSHER"??? Where did Kosher come from?
You have so twisted my meaning, thoughts, intent, philosophy, esthetic,
kind heart and dear sweet personality you'd think I was running for
political office. I'm crushed...
Firstly, do you remember that I said I thought "regular" photography was
the "alternative" and "we" are the real thing? (And the more categories
get mentioned during this thread, the more that seems likely.)
Secondly, do you remember that I said don't apologize or be uptight about
being "off topic" because those postings can be among the most enriching?
(I think it was 2 days ago, maybe you missed it.)
At the same time, it is entirely legitimate, indeed necessary and
*scientific* to look for categories within categories. In fact there are
whole schools of naming things, and from the little I know on the subject
I'd say much of science, esthetics, criticism and linguistics, among other
fields, are richly diffused with such concerns.
So as Linnaeus (help me here, somebody) divided living creatures into
plants and animals, then animals into one-celled, many celled, vertebrate,
mammallian, & so forth, each phylum having further divisions into classes,
species and the other things (which I forget, after all it was 10th
grade), so it seems to me categories of discussion for species of
photography are in order, in fact an aid to thinking about them. The
question was, after all broached -- and has been before.
My take on the original question (was it Bob?) was that it was out of
intellectual curiosity, not to ride anyone out of town on a rail.
Therefore I suggested some terms that seemed to me handiest, likeliest,
for conceptualizing. Right off, Russ (was it?) made some objections,
suggesting that further distinctions, or perhaps revision and
reorganization (making for a good discussion, in my book) would be
required. Terrific!
For instance, I thought "handcoated processes" have concepts, problems
and procedures unique to that category, not least being knowledge of and
choice of papers, and mixing of emulsions, etc. etc. "Manipulated
photography," like solarizing and toning applied to commercial paper, is
also a concept already in use & looked like a handy way of describing
certain classes of photography, which do in fact have their own books and
chapters. This is tabu to mention ?
And, Richard, what "flames" do you speak of? I'm not sure how they fit in
here and confess I haven't noticed any. Am I asleep at the switch again?
Is it a flame to disagree? (I think there's a tune goes with that... Cole
Porter?)
But speaking of disagreeing, I was dismayed (well, mildly piqued), when
someone a week or so ago disagreed with something or other and felt
obliged to apologize before saying so!! Hey, this is a discussion group!
Since when is it a *groupthink* group? Since when isn't it healthy,
admirable, wise, generous, educational and all-around constructive to
disagree? Does it have to be *brave* (or foolhardy) too?
Are we raising a nation of conformists? (Though clearly, even if I didn't
know you Richard, I could see you're not that.) But whatever categories
are "kosher" around here, surely we agree that disagreeing is not some
kind of gaffe or faux pas?
I must add that in my own life I have often, on raising my hand when a
public discussion was opened to the floor to state some kind of
disagreement, been stunned at the reaction.. On several occasions (to my
surprise and embarrassment) the room burst into applause. At other (or
the same) times people came up to me afterwards, privately, and said
fervently, "Oh I'm so glad you said that!"
So why did they wait until I said it? Why do I have to be the one? How
did everyone get to be such wimps? (And I add that this has happened most
often in the art world, an interesting commentary on the independent
spirits there. In community life there is always a great deal of *healthy*
disagreement expected and expressed. Though it's true I hear from
relatives who live "out-of-town" that there it's considered scandalous to
disagree in a public discussion.... Uh oh, I guess that statement belongs
on the "alternative societies" or the "out-of-town" list.)
Cheers,
Judy