Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Wed, 17 Mar 1999 03:15:06 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, David Michael Kennedy wrote:
> Judy, it don't work- what if it's from a 35mm neg? The "industry standard"
> I've been in too many shows (not to toot my own horn(grin)) and I am sure of
> this, as far as galleries, collectors etc. are concerned the image size is
> the image size anything outside the image is a border. You could say size
> includes brush strokes or any of the other things but image size does in
> fact deal with the size of the photographic image only not the extras we
> apply to it.
Well, first of all, I was talking about a cyanotype, which is usually made
from a same-size negative. But I think we're getting into semantics here.
Or let me say that in *my* work, should I choose to include brush strokes
(which I don't usually), they ARE part of, excuse me, the *image.* What
else?
For instance, I often add a more-or-less elaborate border and consider the
totality to be "the image". You can't call it an "extra" if it's central,
or even important, or even part of my meaning. Well, you can call it a ham
sandwich, but to me it's the image. And a border of brushstrokes,
likewise, is part of the meaning, hence "image," probably, though no doubt
there are grey areas....
But hey, I thought the whole thing of "alt" or some kinds of alt, or some
of it, or us, was rule me no rules. And since dealers always want you to
work BIGGER, I suspect they might not try to impose a rule that doesn't
fit. And collectors *want* bigger, so you can make them happy with just a
few words. (Maybe those should be *BIG* brush strokes!)
Meanwhile, I have often seen in books or catalogs, "image size equals thus
and such on paper size thus and such" -- for drawing, printmaking,
photography, any works on paper. I'd say more critical than what's in or
what's out is to be *clear.* Maybe some viewers would be unclear about
whether "image size" included the brush strokes, so it makes sense to
state that one way or another.
But while we're on the topic, hand coated prints often have an irregular
shape, brushed loosely, not square. How would you measure that? Or
sometimes one tasteful drip descends the page.... Probably clearest by
paper size. I know I've seen that in catalogs -- for perfectly rectangular
photographs, too. Especially where ambiguity is possible, you want to be
clear.
(Hey Garimo -- look what you started !)
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:09:03