Darryl Baird (dbaird@flint.umich.edu)
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:40:19 -0500
> Digital has nothing in common with traditional silver based systems -
> except that a lens is used to focus an image on something. Therefore, it is
> to be considered an Alt Process. Before anyone can argue either way, they
> have to define what is being compared. Alt simply means Alternative. Unless
> you specifically define one specific process, you can not say what is or is
> not Alt
>
I wouldn't consider an inkjet print as alternative, but a photograph,
digitized and separated into inkjet produced paper negatives for three
color gum printing and printed on hand coated, preshrunk watercolor
paper is quite alternative. If digital is a means to a non-silver (your
model) end, what's the problem?
With a narrow focus on the means and methods and not the end process,
I'd find it hard to include photogravure, woodburytype, xerox-transfer,
or photograms in the alternative camp. But I do, so I balk at
restrictions that impose exclusions. This isn't a country club, it's
Beakman's World meets Eastman Kodak -- a bunch of mad scientists
marching to a different tune. Later the cords have been, well,
repetitive (and a little discordant).
later
Darryl Baird
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41