In the States it's quite common, in fact I think it's standard, for
"non-silver" to mean all handcoated, or home made, or 19th century or
"historic" processes. For instance the International Center for
Photography names its courses, which include Van dyke and liquid light
and/or salted paper, "non_silver." The course I teach at Pratt
has for 20 years been called "Non-Silver" and has always included at least
one silver-based process. Similarly at Cooper Union, silver processes are
taught in "Non-silver" classes and the planets remain in orbit, nor does
anyone seem to notice or care about this miniscule anomaly.
In fact I'd bet there isn't a "non-silver" course in the country doesn't
teach something with silver. 101522.2625@compuserve.com (And out of the country? What do they call
that course in Canada?)
I'll add, as I mentioned recently, that in my school "Alternative
Photographic Processes" means tearing up, or sequencing, or painting on,
or making books, or toning or solarizing, or whatever, with *factory*
paper.
Permitting "non-silver" to be an umbrella term that also covers silver
processes makes it more hospitable to additional processes that come
along, like polaroid transfer. The looser it is, the more loosely you can
use it. The more it's stretched, the more comfortable the garment.
"Non-silver" is also relatively value-free, which terms like "classic" or
"historic" or "noble" are not -- I mean there's always bound to be some
system-D type will object to any or all of those meanings. Me too. I find
the connotations more troubling than the mere fact that "silver" isn't
"non."
Cheers,
Judy
----------