Michael Keller (keller@wvinter.net)
Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:58:46 -0500
I have to grab hold of this one (and change the thread subject name, too).
Yes, archivalness is spoken of more in photography than other media, probably
because of so many poorly processed amateur prints floating about, or prints
from days before anyone knew what all those chemicals did. But rest assured, art
critics and professionals know about problems with other art, from Turner to
Rothko. In the last 40 years there's been a lot of experimenting with pigments
that they've since discovered were not such good ideas.<g>
But it's not because art is a commodity. I'm sure we've all had at one time, or
grew up with, mediocre "wall art" that was just there for the decor and nobody
cared if it died right on the wall, cause for $14.99 you could replace it. My
mother used to clip pictures of art out of magazines and stick them in little
frames; I'm sure that ritual is repeated all over the Western world, just like
hanging your high school graduation tassle off the mirror of your car.<g> And we
all know those tassles fade REAL fast.
But when you buy "good art," you do want it to last. Not for the investment, but
because it's so good you want to enjoy it forever. I have kids and I've started
thinking about what I don't have from my parents, and what I'd like to leave my
kids, and good art is one of those things. Not just MY stuff, but stuff I've
bought or bartered. Nobody famous, but we like it, our kids are growing up with
it, and it would be nice if they wanted it in their homes as both fine art and
heirlooms.
I've not paid so much for anything that it would kill me to lose it, but I'm
attached enough to some that it would be painful. When we had an exhibit at
work, and I was asked to loan a couple of pieces (by a painter and printmaker)
for the show, I was very pleased that my kids immediately noticed the missing
art from the walls.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:45