Gary Miller (gmphotos@earthlink.net)
Mon, 01 Feb 1999 21:10:19 -0800
Dan;
I think that you are correct. Permanence seems to be a part of human
nature, the idea of creating something that will the last the centuries. I
am sure that the Greeks and Romans wanted their architectural works of art
to last forever. Just as we all seek immortality in some way or another.
Maybe this chase after a piece of archival art is our quest to leave behind
our mark so that many people will know of our work and can appreciate it
many years later. Since photography isn't that old (about 150 years or so)
we may not fully appreciate this as much as say the fact that we have some
marvelous ancient piece of artwork. I for one know that I am glad that I
can see photos from the late nineteenth century. I am glad that they are
still around.
GM
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Koons <dkoons@pld.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 10:01 AM
Subject: Is it archival
> Gary you brought up a good question about the concern on if photos must
>be archival. I sell as many as 3 prints a year, and to be honest those are
>the only ones I wonder about( I wash and tone anything I mat and display)
>On the other hand a co-worker who does a lot of wedding photography and
>sells hundreds of prints a year doesnt seem to worry about it.
>Interestingly enough my parents are the ones telling me to take pictures of
>my son in black and white because color fades, my son is 1 yr old, my
>parents are 72, they more than likly will never see a faded color photo of
>my son. SO? maybe its the feeling that somthing that lasts longer is better
>just because it will. dan
>Dan Koons
>Southwest Medical Center
>Radiology Department
>PO Box 1340
>Liberal, Kansas 67905
>316/629-6286
>Fax: 316/629-2435
>E-Mail: dkoons@pld.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:46