Darryl wrote: <Whether there are other topics of "why" that would appeal to the
list on a whole, I'm doubtful. There hasn't been much support in the past.>
That's true. I didn't mean it should have much support, just a little from time
to time. I don't want to change the list's character. But I think a little "T"
from time to time would do no harm and even confirmed practical (wo-)men could
stand this? Or with the words of Jon Bailey: < "heart" as well as "head" on
this page..>
<What's really wrong with nice tonal ranges or good saturated color/tone on
lovely art paper?>
Nothing. I love it. If it is required by the artistic concept. Imagine why
Moholy Nagy didn't do photogravure?
<If his work was mediocre, no process will make a real difference.>
Yes, that's what I think it was.
<I'd probably seriously consider ink-jet prints when they become more
afforable and more permanent.>
Cost efficiency and permanence are points to consider, but to me not the most
important. Many of us use very inefficient methods of imaging (the industry
would say) and produce prints of rather doubtful permanence (e. g. kallitypes or
salted paper etc.). But if the print we want needs the particular quality which
only a certain process can give, we don't care.
<FWIW, I can certainly make a better digital negative than I can burn or dodge
or copy to enlarged negatives.>
(Sorry, What does FWIW mean?) You are right and if I had the necessary digital
equipment I'd use it. As long as the artistic concept doesn't require wet
collodion. Or, as Al Strauss wrote (thanks): <Many fine art photographers are
switching to digital and getting good results. Its the artist and not the
technique thats important.> Jack Fulton's example is excellent, though
dangerously shifting towards a discussion of digital media - which certainly is
beyond the scope of this list. I have seen the work of Aziz-Kuchar this summer
in Frankfurt. Their message became much stronger by chosing chromogenic printing
(representing "truth") from digitally manipulated negatives instead of ink jet
printing, for instance, thus incorporating a contradiction into the artwork
itself. Do we have similar examples for the use of "alternative" processes?
Carlos Gasparinho wrote: <And you know what? The end result is quite similar.
I truly believe that the how does not matter.>
Probably the results look similar. And for the observer it may make no
difference how the prints were made. But nevertheless you don't convince me that
the how doesn't matter. Why didn't you switch to ink jet and shared your
friend's equipment? Why do you keep on printing kallitype? And even if you
should ever quit kallitype printing: Would you have been able to make a
conscious decision for the ink jet print without having experienced the
aesthetics of kallitype before?
<Compromising or accepting the "almost" result, that is the ultimate sin.>
So I shall probably stay a sinner forever...;-)
And Judy: Your <objection -- so far -- to the family of digital printers [...]>
cannot be based on the necessity of an intermediary with digital imaging alone.
Conventional photography also needs an intermediary (camera, film/paper & wet
process). You may be more used to the conventional intermediary, but principally
you have the same or even more <ready interaction, the improvisation, discovery,
the benefit of
trial & error> with the computer. And conventional photography has no better
relation to drawing or painting than digital imaging - none.
I agree that often digital work of art still suffers some teething troubles. But
isn't that mostly due to a lack of appropriate artistic concept? As it was with
photography in it's early days when people chose the iconology of painting
because photography didn't have one of it's own? Somehow this early digital art
is the most sincere art we had for a long time: It still can't hide its
imperfections. But we'll be sorry once the medium has grown up. Like Rosemary's
baby: It may look innocent. But it has the devil inside. Maybe that's one of the
reasons why I like the 'classic' processes more. Not a very rational argument
though.
Again: best wishes for 1997 to all of you,
Klaus