>To call ourselves "neo-secessionists" would be to ally ourselves with a
>particular style in photography rather than suggesting anything about the
>processes we use.
>
>All I've read of the discussion so far persuades me that we are best sticking
>to 'alternative'.
>
>Peter Marshall
We must find a term that is not exclusive. As there are so many different
processes it is practically impossible to find a name that speaks about
process. The title should relate to what is common among us all. As an
albumen printer, I feel excluded from the terms alternative and non-silver.
In support of new holtslander@sask.usask.ca (neo) photo-secession let me quote Steigleitz from
Photographers on Photography:
Photo-Secession actually means a seceding from the accepted idea of what
constitues a photograph ....
At the opening when Kasabier appeared-it was a blizzard night- she said to
me, "What is this Photo-Secession? Am I a photo-secessionist?"
My answer was, "Do you feel you are?"
"I do."
"Well, that's all there is to it." I said.
I like Photo-Secession because it has an historical connection, not to
process, but to ideas about photography and art.
The "New Photo-Secession would allow for people working in GSP fibre prints
doing custom toning, inventing their own formulas, etc.
Post-modern theory does not allow the photograph to be special or unique. A
friend of mine in post-graduate school in her first critique had made a
beautiful set of fibre prints, archivally toned, framed and matted. The
instructor ripped the prints off the wall and flung them across the room
screaming at her "How dare you regard the photogaph as precious"
I am happy to seceede if this is accepted theory.
Please, I just use this example to make a point, I'm not intersested in
starting a new thread about Post-Modernism.
Mike Robinson
Toronto, Canada
----------