Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:15:46 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Jack Fulton wrote:
> Dear Dean
> If Picasso made prints on RC, they'd be in every museum Ö which goes to
> say that IF the work is good Ö and that is according to the individual
> tastes of curators Ö then, yes, it could be in a museum. However, whims
> be that as they are, fame and acceptance by others aids their choice.
> Sometimes galleries and museum curators know something about photography
> but more often not what might make it art ; which again is where the
> whimsy copulates with the pocketbook.
Am unable to think of ONE artwork Picasso made that wasn't more or less
permanent, from ceramic to oil paint to a bicycle seat. So I would contest
that statement Jack... or rather I'd say that I can't IMAGINE Picasso
working on RC paper, and I don't even particularly like Picasso. (While I
daresay museums have bought ephemeral Picasso sketches, that's not what he
got there with.)
> Also, I believe it was David Vestal or Ctein, tested RC papers and noted
> the improvements have been major and the emulsion and archival aspects
> were now excellent.
Ctein had a series of articles in Photo Techniques in which he documented
his disaster with RC paper. He had evidently, decided to do some
EXHIBITION prints on RC. (The reason for this told to me was that he saw
some Mapplethorpes allegedly done on RC which he admired.) He described
efforts to save them with Sistan, etc., to little avail.
While it's true that the claim was made years ago that RC papers are now
fine & dandy, recent evidence of various kinds (which I did not keep in my
brain as every cell is already rented, so no use asking) is that that's
not so. Here's one where I (in anticipation) agree with Bob Maxey, about
.... ugh, RC paper. What you do with RC paper is contact it to lith film
to make a negative & then a gum print...
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:31