Peter, graduate school is like childbirth: when it's over, you forget the
pain and just do the best you can with what you got out of it.
Drawing didn't die with the invention of photography, photography doesn't
die with digital, etc. There's room & reason for the expressive forms of
your choice, as long as you can get -- or make -- the ingredients.
As for defending the choice -- why? Do you have to defend your choice to
live in the city, or not go to a given movie, or be a vegetarian? That
kind of group think, or push to conformity, is sometimes fueled by pure
jealousy, or a wish to control. No one should function or be able in an
area where "they" are not. The "defense" might simply be, if you have to
ask, you won't understand...;- )
But I didn't get what you meant by "they never could get a handle on
tintypes." You mean they couldn't do the process, so they badmouthed
it? (If so, mix them up some cyanotype.)
> And on a more art-philosophical level, the concept of painters being
> associated with photographers; part of my graduate study concentrate is
> painting. If I could have my way, almost half of my formal education
> should be painting and the study of artistic components. Since I have
> started this track of thinking, my work has changed drastically. My
> advisor looked at my slide portfolio last week and said "Pre-Raphaelite".
Many "alt" photographers began as painters -- Betty Hahn, Christopher
James and a zillion more I don't think of this moment. Some photographers
even return to painting and drawing (Lartigue, Strand and Cartier-Bresson
come to mind).
A photographer from this list even told me he'd written a song & made a
cassette. I don't know offhand what rule that breaks, but surely someone
can come up with one.
In sum, non carborundum.... oh drat, my mind is going. Somebody help me
["Latin": don't let the bastards grind you down"].
Judy