Years ago art critic Harold Rosenberg said by the time there's a band
wagon it's too late to jump on it. The organization you propose might not
a bandwagon, but could in fact be deadlier. A bandwagon at least isn't a
bureacracy and/or conglomerate. (Next stop Disney and Turner?)
The question at this point might be what size is the "right" size. Is it
possible we're close to it now? We have excellent sources of materials,
Bostick and Sullivan & Artcraft among them, and excellent sources of
information, "the list," the Web, and Luis's publications among them. As
for exhibition, I submit that when the work is strong it gets shown one
way or another. Most organizational salons are deadly, and organizational
*juried* shows even worse -- liable to destroy not only friendships, but
the organization itself. (I say this advisedly, having spent many years'
servitude in artists' organizations.)
As for a publication, I think I've mentioned I'm *trying* to start one,
although still stuck in the back row of computer hell, feeling like the
slow learner dropped by administrative error into the fast class. Assuming
I navigate these hurdles, I daresay it won't be much like what you have in
mind.. . BUT I'm delighted to find such a computer-adept as yourself
acknowledging the function of print media! ;- )
For another good deed in a naughty world, you have said something
provocative (as you point out) to rouse the list from sleep, and no
doubt merit forgiveness on that account... But puleese!
Divisions? Definitions? Rules? Board of Trustees? Officers? Activities
"sanctioned" by the group? Oh, oh, oh! Isn't that what we came into
alt-photo to get away from?
Judy
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Richard Sullivan wrote:
>
> 1. We need an all encompassing not-for-profit fine-arts photographic
> organization with divisions for handcoated, digital, and conventional
> photographic forms. (Fine arts being defined as photographic art prints
> and objects made to be appreciated as such. This would exclude commercial,
> journalistic, and similar forms of the photographic art) I offer the
> expansion of the organization from just alt-processes to the totality of
> fine arts photography as there is no group addressing the needs of the
> conventional silver printing fine arts photographer either. (The consensus
> is that silver gelatin will be an alternative process by the end of this
> decade as well.) To me having a digital division seems logical as well.
>
> 2. Tie-ins with similar organizations in Europe and Asia. The Bath
> Symposium will be a place to find out how this goes over with the rest of
> the world.
>
> 3. I envision the first benefit to members would be a newsletter. In a year
> or two I would like to see a journal produced with super high quality
> images and content. I have some ideas on this, but I need to touch base
> with some key people first. With a 501 (c) (3) organization we could
> eventually be a funnel for grants, especially in the field of research into
> photographic processes.
>
> 4. The organization would consist of a Board of Trustees and a Board of
> Directors and officers.
>
> 5. Later we could launch conferences, symposiums and workshops, sanctioned
> by the group.
>
> 6. I see cross membership in any of the organizations. Membership in the
> U.S. organization would be open worldwide and hopefully others would be
> open to U.S. citizens.
>
> I see no organization that addresses these needs, especially here in the
> U.S. The U.K. does have its venerable Royal Photographic Society which
> might provide them with their built in structure. I know the "Royal" is
> international in scope but I think it might be hard to organize here in the
> U.S. under any banner with "Royal" in it.(Maybe the wounds from 1776 are
> still too fresh. Sorry Terry, I had to do it.) As for the rest of Europe, I
> know that there are national photographic groups, as to whether or not they
> can address the needs of their alternative photographic process printers
> will need to be addressed locally.
>
> On the bright side, we still have the Alternative Photographic
> International Symposium in Lisbon in 1998.
>
> I think this is an appropriate discussion for the List so I encourage even
> the lurkers to comment. Things have been a little dull lately so maybe this
> will liven things up a bit.
>
> Dick Sullivan
>
> Bostick & Sullivan
> PO Box 16639, Santa Fe
> NM 87506
> 505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
>