I guess the term "alternative" originated in the 60's because fine art
photographers were looking for an alternative look to what could be
produced with then commercially available paper, but I'm sure you know
that. You raise an interesting question. Is "classical" to be used only
for those processes which were invented and perfected in the Victorian
era (cyanotype, carbon, platinium etc.)? If so, I think it would be a
useful term. I like it. However, what then shall we do with modern
alternative printing like gumoil, polaroid transfer, xerox transfer,
liquid light, Dr. Ware's "new" processes and so on. Of course, a modern
composer could write a "classical" symphony as did Prokofiev. Then we
have the digital imaging people. Here is an area which is currently
alternative but rapidly replacing normal silver-based photography.
Some time back I brought up the question of weather we should call
ourselves photographers or artists. This stirred up a rather heated
discussion during which accusations of snobbery were offered as well
as suggestions to move the entire discussion to the photoart list.
I did not agree with this at the time and still do not. I believe that
photography is an artistic medium, that we are essentially printmakers
and since the purpose of the print is artistic, we are artists who are
working with photographic processes. But then. my heros are the photo-
secessionists. Having said that and risked some sligt charring around the edges,I will go further and state that I like your idea and believe that this
IS an appropriate place to discuss it. I have mentioned before that
I live in an area where, to the best of my knowledge, I and my students
are the only folks doing alternative process printing. I often find myself
in the position of trying to explain what I am doing. I say again, a
good idea. Lets all talk about it and let the flames begin. ;-)
Bob Schramm
----------