You said:
>Everyday? Everyday for many may refer to snapshot photography--meaning
>take it to the store for processing, or commercial photography--meaning
>another way of being machine made.
Just as 'classical' for many may refer only to music before the romantic
era but to others 'classic' may refer to everything from fourth and fifth
century BC Greece to SS Jaguars and Cords. We are talking in terms not
capable of precise definition.
>But the major problem is that words such as alternative and complementary
>convey a sense that what is being designated is obscure
That is not a problem. It is a recognition of reality. To 99% of the
population 'alternative photography' is obscure. It is even more obscure
than 'straight' photography. Try asking on your campus or on the streets of
Toronto to discover how many people have heard of Sudek .
Perhaps we should be trying to find an alternative to 'straight'.
> Continual use of these words perpetuates obscurity--the
>field always pointing away from itself to something prominent.
>Another point. Looking at the medical example mentioned by Terry,
>complementary fields are thought to be answerable to allopathic
>medicine--or so the allopaths vigorously argue.
> Claims by complementary
>medicines are criticized and rejected for not following the allopathic
>model of research. Suggest the authority is elsewhere and you're
>answerable to conditions set by others.
We are so answerable. Nearly all our efforts ride upon the coat tails of
others. We are struggling to find films for our contact negatives because
large format film is obsolete in another industry. Our Bromoils are made
on paper designed for painters and designers. Our brushes are made for
water-colorists. Our blotting paper is made for printers. Even eighty years
ago Frederick Evans gave up photography because platinum was needed for the
manufacture of high explosives. We are constantly at the margin and we
have to compromise.
But I am not sure that the internal politics of the medical profession need
to spill over into our activities.
>Why name an identity by pointing elsewhere? The mark of maturity is
>to be able to create a name that refers to what is essential in its own
>right.
We have a vague agglomeration of a number of processes that do not fit
easily into the idea most photographers have of photography. Even that
idea is constantly changing.
We are so obscure that even professional curators of major international
exhibitions of US photography cannot tell the difference between gravure
and platinum and silver gelatine.
Is an Inuit neologism going to bring us into the lime light.
If we wish to stand tall among that small group of photographers who may
have heard of us can I suggest that we take a leaf out of Katherine
Turner's book when she set up her photographic gallery for work outside the
academic main stream.
She called it 'The Special Photographers' Company'
I like it.
Terry
<
----------