Gary Miller (gmphotos@earthlink.net)
Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:52:01 -0800
I find it very interesting that when it comes to photographs people are
always talking about archival qualities, archival processing, and permanance
issues, yet in the other art media I rarely hear anyone ask if a painting or
a sculpture piece is archival . It seems that we photogs need to keep
proving our merits to help be accepted as an art form by adding the
permanence label.
This question also brought up another topic that I have been discussing with
other artists recently. Let's see what the alt process people think. Are
people buying art because of the aesthetic experience of a piece, or t are
they drawn to it and want to own it, or is it merely a commodity, like a
stock, to be bought and later sold at a higher value, or some mixture of
these qualities and others. If you really appreciate a work of art will it
really matter to you if it lasts 100 years or more. Will you be around to
admire it. So is the whole permanence issue commodity driven, has art just
become something to collect for value becuase some art critic or gallery
owner somewhere says that a piece is a must have. This leads to another
thought that was brought up along the same lines in my Aesthetics class. I
could bring in too beautifully printed 16x20 silver prints of nearly the
same scene, we will say a group of Cyprus trees in nearby Point Lobos.
Both photographs I will show you were made with an 8x10 camera, and both
printed 'archivally' on fiber paper with the end results being a pretty
nearly matched full tone print with detail where it should be and shadows
where they should be. Now one of the photos I will have taken and it may be
worth $1000 (at the most). The other, almost the identical piece, is worth
$18,000. because it was taken and printed by Edward Weston. Why? I am
taking nothing away from Weston, I am merely using him as an example of what
a known name can mean in the art world. Let us hear some discussion. I
take no sides on either issue, just curiosity.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Sil Horwitz <silh@iag.net>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: archival ink for deskjet
>At 02:08 PM 1999/01/29 -0500, Judy wrote:
>>
>>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sil Horwitz wrote:
>>
>>> At 02:53 AM 1999/01/29 -0500, Judy wrote:
>>> But don't think watercolors are so very permanent. My late wife bought a
>>> watercolor painting that she put up in a dark hall here. It was
brilliant,
>>> but after about ten years, the paper has become a dark ecru and the
colors
>>> have definitely deteriorated.
>>
>>Sil, I promise that had to to with the individual work. I have watercolors
>>from 40 years ago with no sign of deterioration (I'm the one giving signs
>>of deterioration).
>
>Sorry my statement was misinterpreted. What I meant was that watercolors
>CAN have problems, too, not that all do. All forms of art have permanence
>problems, as note all the reconstructions done by galleries. OTOH, I have
>never seen a faded platinum print, though I'm sure any made on bad paper
>would show deterioration.
>
>Sil Horwitz, FPSA
>Technical Editor, PSA Journal
>silh@iag.net
>Visit http://www.psa-photo.org/
>Personal page: http://www.iag.net/~silh/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:48